branch newsletter - royal aeronautical society · 2020. 11. 30. · operating standards for...

Branch Newsletter Y

eo

vil

Summer 2017 Edition

Page | 1

As I write this column the sun has emerged after

several days’ absence; as with many of us it appears to

be enjoying some time away! I hope the summer is

proving to be an enjoyable and relaxing break for

everyone.

At the end of last season, rather later than

originally intended, we held an excellent Henson &

Stringfellow dinner and lecture, again with Concorde as

the backdrop. There is a full report inside this

newsletter and I would like to publically thank Danny

Young for pulling together the organisation. The

evening ran very smoothly, a tribute to his meticulous

planning. Also we must thank Alison Corr who worked

tirelessly behind the scenes, very much the unsung

hero of the event.

We welcome two new committee members, Eddie

Wilson-Chalon and Robert Sawford, who have joined in

the past few months, pushing the average age of the

committee further in the right direction. The average

age is the envy of many branches, long may it

continue. One of the absentees from the committee

photograph above is Sophie Hart. The rescheduled

Henson and Stringfellow lecture clashed with her

honeymoon – there are some events that are even

more important than our lectures! Congratulations from

us all to Sophie and her husband, Chris.

As we turn our thoughts towards the 2017-18

lecture season, your branch committee has kept its foot

on the pedal and has focussed on preparation for the

season. The lecture programme is coming together

well with good variety to suit all tastes. As always we

welcome your suggestions on topics of interest and if

you have seen some good lectures that you feel would

enhance our programme please let us know. I and the

rest of the committee look forward to seeing you over

the next 10 months.

The Chairperson’s Column — Alisdair Wood

The Yeovil Branch committee celebrate the 62nd Henson & Stringfellow Dinner and Lecture

(Left to Right - David Gibbings, Daniel Young, Jack Allen, Michael Winder, Alisdair Wood, Jeremy Graham, Craig Peaple,

Eddie Wilson-Chalon, Robert Sawford) (Absent - Sophie Hart, Daniel McKenna, David McCallum, Cliff Keating)

Summer 2017 Edition Yeovil Branch Newsletter

Page | 2

Meet The Yeovil Branch Committee The RAeS Yeovil Branch committee is comprised of a diverse range of individuals; all united by their passion for aerospace. This issue we will be meeting two individuals who volunteer their time to promoting the RAeS.

Eur Ing Cliff Keating, BSc (Hons), CEng, MRAeS

Background

Cliff joined Westlands flight test department after graduating in 1978, working on the W30, Lynx, Sea King and Apache projects. He ran the Lynx and Apache teams as Assistant Chief Flight Test Engineer, spending a considerable amount of time in the USA. After leaving Westlands in 2005 he joined the Empire Test Pilots School as a tutor until he retired in December 2014.

Cliff has been a member of the RAeS and a chartered engineer since 1985 and a member of the Society of Flight Test Engineers since 1991. He has been heavily involved with the David Hall, South Petherton for the last 25 years, is Vice Chairman of Petherton Arts Trust and is the venue licensee.

In the allegedly large amount of spare time he now has, he spends his time walking his Airedale terrier, fiddling with an ancient VW Camper, fishing, shooting and making model aeroplanes. He has been married to his long suffering wife Angie for 39 years. RAeS Involvement

When did you join the Yeovil Branch committee and why?

After retirement I trained as a RAeS assessor for those seeking to be chartered engineers and I had previously served on the RAeS Flight Test Committee. With my contacts from ETPS I thought that I might be of some use!

What is your role in the committee and what does it entail?

I try and use my contacts to help provide interesting lectures for the branch, sadly as most of them are scattered around the world my level of success has not been great!

What do you value most about the RAeS?

The contacts and networking.

What do you think the RAeS should focus on in the future?

Without a doubt the status of engineers in the UK. The term engineer should carry the same professional weight as in Europe. The bloke who fixes your washing machine is not an engineer!

Tell Us About Yourself

Where did you work and what was your role?

I had the honour of being a tutor at ETPS, working with a fantastic group of staff and students.

What is your greatest professional or personal achievement?

Definitely the Lynx composite blade flight test programme.

How do you relax?

What’s “relax”?

Describe yourself in three words

Still mostly crazy!

Name the aircraft...

Westland’s Historic Archive has a large array of images over a wide range of aircraft.

This is a snap shot of an historical Westland aircraft post flight, but what is the aircraft?

Answer can be found on last page.


Page | 3

Meet The Yeovil Branch Committee The RAeS Yeovil Branch committee is comprised of a diverse range of individuals; all united by their passion for aerospace. This issue we will be meeting two individuals who volunteer their time to promoting the RAeS.

Jeremy P Graham, BSc (Hons), CEng, FRAeS

Jeremy Graham attended Portsmouth Polytechnic from 1971 to 1975, studying for an Honours Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He joined Westland Helicopters as a post graduate apprentice in the autumn of 1975, spending the first 12 weeks along with his fellow post graduate entries in the craft apprentice training school, attempting to file flat edges, drill round holes and lace electrical wires into looms to the satisfaction of the training school tutors. The two years of post graduate training included spells in the Reliability and Maintainability, Quality Assurance, detail parts manufacture, assembly line, flight shed, marketing and finally Remotely Piloted Helicopter (RPH) development. At the end of the training he was taken on as a full time member of the RPH mechanical development team but was quickly seconded to the RPH systems engineering group to help staff the increasingly demanding task of converting operational requirements into design features and functions. He remained with the RPH team until 1983 after which he was assigned to work with the Future Projects team on the avionic and weapon system aspects of the Light Attack Helicopter. From 1986 he was appointed as the Head of Avionics and Systems Research and was the company representative assigned to collaborative mission sensors and mission systems engineering teams for NH-90 and the A129 Light Attack Helicopter respectively. In 1989 he was seconded to EHI to lead the Project Definition study for EH101 to meet an RAF requirement and then to lead the in-country

engineering team bidding for the Canadian SAR programme, based in Ottawa. Following the capture of that contract Jeremy returned to Yeovil to operate in the interface with IBM on the Merlin HMA contract but from 1995 he was appointed as the lead engineer for the formal Merlin Tactical Support Helicopter bid to the MoD, subsequently to become known as the HC3 Variant. He remained with this programme until the last aircraft was delivered. In 2003 he was promoted to be the Chief Safety and Airworthiness Engineer for Westland Helicopters and from 2007 the Head of System Reliability and Safety for the integrated AgustaWestland engineering organisation. During this period he was again seconded to EHI, this time to lead the engineering aspects of the bid for the USAF CSAR-X programme, initially in collaboration with Lockheed Martin and later with Northrop Grumman. Finally, in 2012 he was assigned the role of Chief Engineer for the out of production types, Sea King, Apache, Gazelle and Chinook. Jeremy is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the RAeS, he is chair of the Specialist Group Chairpersons Committee, he is a member of the Learned Society Board, and has an ex-officio seat on Council. He is a member of the Medals and Awards Committee and Joint Chair of the Yeovil Branch.

The Page 3 Model

The Westland Lysander was a British army co-operation and liaison aircraft.


Page | 4

The Tactical Processing department of Leonardo Helicopters was recently faced with an interesting problem: ‘Provide a mission display in the cabin but don’t restrict any cabin role fit configurations.’ The traditional Mission Consoles, as well as any rack mounted option, were both suggested; however they were deemed unacceptable by the customer. When this customer said they wanted a display that did not restrict the user they really meant it. It quickly became obvious that the only solution was to provide a handheld display that could be stowed in webbing or a pocket on the aircraft, but was also integrated into the aircraft mission computer. An investigation was carried out to explore suppliers, options, and costs for such a solution. A handheld display, if able to fulfil a large part of the role of the currently used Mission Console computers, can provide some key benefits. A mission console weighs in at 85kg and takes up a large amount of cabin space. A handheld display could weigh as little as 1.2kg and be stored in a pocket. Even with the potential for multiple handheld displays on board this would be a huge weight saving. Longer flights and heavier cargo are immediately possible. The amount of space that could be saved by replacing the Mission Console would be extremely significant. A further benefit is that pilot workload can be reduced by allowing other crew members to assist in managing the mission systems. In addition there would be greater crew flexibility; the winchman could use the on board

cameras to see better or troops could pass round a live tactical map just before deployment. The solution to meet the customer’s requirements was to use a wired display that works much like a Desktop computer; which supplies a monitor with video and receives back button presses from a keyboard and mouse, except in this case, a touchscreen would be used. The Cockpit displays also follow a very similar arrangement to the handheld display, hence this solution allowed for minimal impact to the existing systems.

The team from Leonardo worked with 8-10 suppliers to find the best solution for the display, ranging from ruggedized tablet computers to military spec display suppliers. Unfortunately it wasn’t as simple as they had hoped. The Leonardo general operating standards for aircraft equipment require a very high standard of qualification. Equipment is expected to operate wherever the aircraft can. Furthermore, many military display suppliers that were spoken with assumed their display would operate inside of a closed cockpit or vehicle cabin; however, in a helicopter cabin with the doors open the problems are much greater. An aircraft operating temperature range, for example, is -30°C to +50°C. Temperatures that will freeze the cells on an LCD display or boil them in strong direct sunlight. Dust and sand is also an issue; one that surprised the team by being paid more attention to by tablet suppliers than military monitor suppliers. Vibration on helicopters is another important issue which has a stringent set of

Handheld Mission Displays for SAR & Military Helicopters — Calum McFarlane

AW159 cabin without mission console

AW159 cabin with a mission console

Handheld display solution

A Handheld Display must be environmentally robust


Page | 5

requirements. A handheld display might expect some vibration damping from its users operator while in use but once stowed it would be subject to full aircraft vibration and will needed to be able to withstand it. These factors and others culminate into a problem of weight. In order to design a display to meet Company standards, the lowest weight suppliers would offer was 3kg and some quoted up to 9kg, not exactly light weight! Even a rugged off-the-shelf rugged tablet comes in at under 1.5kg, however, the rugged tablet does not promise to be even close to as tough or durable. Any changes to the existing mission computer would incur large costs, something the team was keen to avoid. Hence, Human Machine Interface (HMI) was an area that also required consideration. With a handheld display, the most obvious and common way for users to interact was with a touchscreen. A touchscreen was a method that worked remarkably well with current display formats already used with the mission computer. It was found that it came down to an issue of the size of intractable items on the screen, of which there are many. If items were too small it would be impossible to interact with them effectively or accurately on a vibrating, tilting aircraft, especially if the users were to wear gloves, which is a standard piece of kit for aircrew. Although it was not possible to test displays on aircraft due to limitations in access, the team referenced previous studies and did testing with real mission computer output formats whilst wearing standard issue gloves. It was decided that a 10.4”, 3:4 aspect ratio display was the minimum acceptable display size. The 3:4 aspect ratio arose due to the output format of the mission computer being locked to that ratio. Other aspect ratio displays were possible such as 16:9, the norm for tablets; however this meant that there were unused areas of the screen, and that the picture size was smaller meaning that a larger screen tablet would be needed. A number of 16:9 displays were examined as this was the most common display format, and as part of the research conducted the team came up with some concepts for using those areas of the screen to

de-clutter the mission display area. When testing with gloves it was surprising to find that even the tablet displays could cope with thin gloves. However only the military displays contained resistive touch screen allowing the use of nuclear or chemical gloves as Leonardo standards ask for.

All these factors along with a number of others examined culminated in the aforementioned problem of heavy displays but also a trade off in terms of cost. Did the Company want a display that was an effectively “disposable” off-the-shelf rugged tablet at £1.5K per unit, or a purpose built and qualified piece of aircraft equipment that cost around £25K per unit? A key question to ask when considering cost is: which would you rather your operator accidentally dropped out the door during a sudden unexpected manoeuvre? The other factor to consider is the future of this technology. If it is to become a stepping stone to the future where crews are equipped with personal heads up displays and holographic maps updated by, and interacting with the aircraft, we need to choose a display that easily moves towards being more than just a display. A display that can cope with WiFi and, support other programs allowing the display to integrate with the aircraft at every level, aircraft management, mission planning, video data links, and mission systems, is what this work was aimed towards achieving.

Handheld Mission Displays for SAR & Military Helicopters — Calum McFarlane

Unused Screen area reused for buttons

Proposal for the Future of Cockpit Display Systems

Example HMI on a tablet

Weight savings mean more equipment capability


Page | 6

On Tuesday 27th June the RAeS Yeovil Branch celebrated its 62nd Henson & Stringfellow Dinner and Lecture in the Fleet Air Arm Museum (FAAM) at RNAS Yeovilton. The event was attended by over 175 guests, each of whom came from a spectrum of different career backgrounds and experiences, but all united in their engagement in aerospace. It was particularly encouraging to see a significant number of young people attending the night, representing an impressive 20% of the total attendees present. The majority of the event took place in the shadow of the iconic Concorde 002. Following dinner, the branch President and MD of Leonardo Helicopters Yeovil site, John Ponsonby, gave the opening speech of the night in which he proudly outlined the activities of the Yeovil Branch and Leonardo Helicopters. He reminded the audience that the Yeovil Branch celebrated its 90th anniversary in 2016 and how, having been originally called the Westland Aircraft Society, it was formed by the Company as a “way of encouraging engineering competence across an ever growing workforce” by providing lectures on all matters aeronautical, a key purpose that continues to this day. John made special

mention of how last year, to celebrate both the 90th anniversary of the Branch and the Society’s 150th anniversary, members of the Yeovil Branch committee along with trainees from Leonardo Helicopters and Airbus, organised a STEM event under the banner of Cool Aeronautics aimed at primary school children. The event, coincidentally also held at the FAAM, was attended by 151 children from 9 local schools and was “characterised by the Society staff as the best one yet”. The guest speakers for the night were Colin Russell and Bob Simmons of Baines Simmons, the internationally renowned company specialising in aviation safety performance improvement. Their lecture, entitled “Safety from push to pull”, discussed the emerging issue that reliance on lessons learnt from incidents and accidents, combined with the development of ever increasingly comprehensive regulation, no longer provides an adequate approach to safety assurance. This approach has undoubtedly driven significant improvements to safe operations to the extent where accidents in particular are increasingly rare and regulation serves to assure safety, but can constrain further improvement. The whole industry must now adopt a revised approach

62nd Henson & Stringfellow Dinner and Lecture — Daniel Young

Guests enjoying reception drinks amongst the impressive assembly of aircraft at the FAAM

RAeS Yeovil Branch President John Ponsonby welcomes guests and thanks them for attending

(Left to Right) Jeremy Graham – Yeovil Branch Chairman, Simon Henley – RAeS President Elect, Colin Russell – Baines & Simmons, Bob Simmons – Baines & Simmons,

John Ponsonby – Yeovil Branch President, Alisdair Wood – Yeovil Branch Chairman


Page | 7

where safety leadership becomes more than regulatory compliance alone: the concept of “safety leadership” was described as the foundation for an organisation pulling safety through rather than reliance on safety being assured by the airworthiness authorities pushing regulation into an organisation. The concept of safety leadership can be summarised as the process of interaction between leaders and followers, through which leaders can exert their influence on followers to achieve organisational safety goals. However, it will be necessary to clearly define what “leadership” means and how it is applied. Too often, the terms “leadership” and “management” are used interchangeably, but there is a critical difference between these roles and the vital functions of each in building strong safety performance. Specifically, managers exist as part of the organisation’s structural hierarchy and exert formal influence over their subordinates, while leadership is a voluntary activity by which an individual exerts influence over co-workers by setting an example of appropriate behaviour to elicit shared goals and effect positive change in the organisation. Certainly one individual can be both a manager and a leader, but this only occurs through conscious effort to effectively perform both roles. It was a testament to the skill of the speakers that they managed to take, at first glance, a dry subject and present it in such a thought-provoking manner, leaving all of the assembled guests with a new outlook on how safety can be implemented within their respective organisations. Prior to the lecture, the RAeS President Elect, Rear Admiral Simon Henley, gave an impassioned speech, in which he outlined each of the guest speakers backgrounds and thanked them for volunteering their time to present to the assembled guests, before putting emphasis on the vital role all in our industry play in ensuring safety across all levels of supply and operation. The final vote of thanks for the night was given by Air Vice-Marshall Graham Russell, Director of Helicopters at Defence Equipment & Support, who echoed Simon Henley’s words in

thanking the speakers for their lecture, and presented the speakers with a small token of appreciation in the form of two signed copies of the popular “The Art of Flight: A Celebration of a Century of Aeronautical Achievement”, which features a collection of paintings and sketches of every type of aircraft built over the last hundred years at the Yeovil site. The subject of encouraging and promoting young people was a popular message echoed throughout the night by the various speakers. John Ponsonby noted how the Yeovil Branch “enjoys a youthful committee, including five young engineers” and that the Strategic Partnering Agreement signed with the UK MoD last year represented “joint investment” to “[attracting] the right apprentices and graduates in engineering, business and support; and [thus] invest in future generations”. Simon Henley, whilst discussing the future strategy of the RAeS, made a point of stressing that one of the key aims of the Society for the next couple of years was the encouragement of young people into taking leading roles within the organisation as “the future continuance of the RAeS is in their hands”. Even the guest speakers made reference to how on-going Safety Leadership will need the support of young aerospace professionals if it is ever to “take-off” as a culture within organisations. The event was a grand success, made even more impressive by the variety of historical aircraft which surrounded the guests during the whole proceedings. Truly, it was a fitting environment for such a prestigious occasion. Thanks are due to the guest speakers, the museum and catering staff, the audio visual team, the Leonardo Helicopters external affairs team, and the organising committee from the Branch for such a sterling evening.

The Henson & Stringfellow Dinner and Lecture is the Yeovil Branches annual black tie named lecture, and is the highlight of the branch calendar. Tickets are available to all members of the RAeS, and details on how to purchase one are released via the Yeovil Branch mailing list, or through the main RAeS website.

62nd Henson & Stringfellow Dinner and Lecture — Daniel Young

RAeS President-Elect Simon Henley discusses the future strategy of the Society

Guest Speakers Colin Russell and Bob Simmons outline the possible future of Safety Leadership


Page | 8

It’s often believed that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – or UAVs as they are more commonly known – have only been around for the last few decades. In reality, UAV concepts can be seen as early as the First World War where aircraft were designed to be ‘flying bombs’. These were meant to be unmanned ‘aerial’ torpedoes, which would use gyroscopes to control the aircraft onto the target and are often considered to be the precursor to the development of modern day cruise missiles. In reality, these early aircraft were not very successful. But by the 1950s, technology and understanding of flight mechanics had greatly matured leading to successful development and deployment of several UAVs such as Ryan Firebee (target UAV) or Lightning Bug (Reconnaissance UAV) which were used by the US armed forces in several conflicts at the time. Owing to successful applications in several war zones over the years, there has been a great deal of military investment in UAV technologies leading to the development of aircraft such as the General Atomic MQ-9 Reaper or the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. In the military environment, UAVs give the benefit of removing aircrew from dangerous environments and are often able to fly to more extreme flight envelopes, giving greater height, reach and speed in comparison to manned aircraft. However, in the civilian market, these advantages are not necessarily useful. Traditionally, the civilian

aerospace market has targeted transporting people and freight. Traditional airliners have been optimised over decades to be the most efficient way of carrying people and freight at acceptable speed, range and cost. Removing the pilot from these aircraft has very small impact on affecting the efficiency airliners operate at, so large aviation companies do not pursue unmanned variants of aircraft for their traditional markets. Nevertheless, over the last two decades an exponential growth in the number of UAV products developed and operated in the commercial market has occurred. A key driver for this is the ability to make aircraft small owing to advancements in technology. Traditional commercial aircraft such as airliners or helicopters are relatively large and sophisticated machines and thus have a huge development and production cost. For this reason, it is almost impossible for new, smaller businesses to be able to tap into niche markets with traditional designs which are generally large and expensive airframes. With the rapid advances in technology, airframes can be made smaller to carry and deploy specific payloads allowing them to take advantage of very niche applications. These types of aircraft, owing to the scale and size, can be developed, manufactured and operated for a relatively low cost, which have made UAVs much more attractive in comparison to traditional methods. Developments such as Amazon Prime Air drone, UNMND’s Anchor tethered drone or Zipline’s medical delivery UAV are a few examples when considering niche applications

UAVs: A Brief History and their Development — Swapnil Patra

Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane

Zipline’s Medical Delivery UAV

Ryan Model 147 UAV (also known as the Lightning Bug)


Page | 9

and markets that have been targeted. Relatively new materials, such as composites, have become a lot more widespread. Wet lay manufacturing methods allow engineers to make components that are stronger yet lighter, cheaper and easier to make than with the traditional metallics which they replace. 3-D Printing – or additive manufacturing - has also developed greatly from when the technology was initially conceived. This allows for much easier prototyping of parts and is often being used to build parts or complete UAVs, allowing the aircraft to be manufactured relatively quickly and cheaply. Project SULSA, run by Southampton University, intended to do just this by constructing an airframe made of 4 major 3-D printed components which could be assembled with no tools. Following this, it could be fitted with off the shelf electronics to make a fairly easy and cheap airframe for several applications. The development of electronics has also greatly increased the capabilities for which smaller UAVs can be used for. Hardware has been developed to be able

to provide greater quality in smaller and lighter packaging. A critical component for successful commercial UAVs is the ability to have autopilot systems for stabilised or autonomous flight. These have developed rapidly to the extent where all the sensors and processors can be packaged in a product that weighs 38 grams! This type of packaging development is common across various other UAV components and sensors. The development of open source software has also meant that engineers can use readily available base software for the hardware. This base software is normally modified and manipulated for specific applications for the aircraft. By using open source base software, businesses can cut huge development costs yet still create good quality, bespoke software which is generally robust and reliable as the base has been developed by a large community. A large limiting factor for operation of these aircraft is that they can be developed and flown in an unethical or unsafe manner. Owing to the easy accessibility to UAVs, it is very difficult to regulate / monitor safe operations of these aircraft. Aviation authorities around the world currently have operating regulations that are designed for conservatively safe operations. However these regulations can reduce the scope of what these airframes can do. For this reason, aviation authorities are working on updating the rules and regulations to deal with the growing commercial UAV market to allow the scope of their operations to be widened whilst keeping them safe. This article has discussed a few critical changes in technology that have allowed rapid growth in smaller commercial UAVs that target niche markets. These changes have allowed for much cheaper and quicker development of smaller airframes to target niche markets in comparison to traditional larger aircraft. Although several of these UAVs are currently being operated - such as the Zipline drone which operates in Rwanda to deliver medical supplies – majority of the technology in the market is currently in incubation, development or refinement. It could be envisaged that in the next decade, UAVs could be used for recording sports events, aerial surveillance, first response in disaster situations or a whole number of unimaginable things, which in the future, will become an integral part of our society.

UAVs: A Brief History and their Development — Swapnil Patra

Amazon Prime Air Drone

SULSA UAV

UNMND’s Anchor Tethered Drone


Page | 10

Considered to be a vital part of the Aerospace Industry, aircraft maintenance is tasked with ensuring that all aircraft are maintained to stringent aviation standards. Aircraft maintenance also ensures that all aircraft are in the correct operating condition prior to flight. This article features an insight into the working practises at the International Business Jet Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility, and in particular, the work activities of the Engineering Technicians who maintain Cessna Citation Jets and Beechcraft Kingair Turboprops.

Aircraft Maintenance Procedures

Due to the rigorous nature of maintenance procedures, the maintenance process inside this MRO facility began weeks before an aircraft arrived. During this time the customer support team would compile the aircraft Work Pack, containing a list of maintenance tasks to be carried out. Each task, referred to as a Job Sheet, would detail the maintenance work to be carried out. Each sheet had a reference number and a comments box, which would be used for maintenance notes and engineer signatures. The tasks contained within the Work Pack ranged from EASA and FAA maintenance directives, scheduled checks (based on aircraft hours) and customer requests. On aircraft arrival, the Work Pack would be handed over to the aircraft’s lead engineer, who would then distribute the maintenance tasks to the engineering team.

The first step in the maintenance process for all incoming aircraft, regardless of the tasks being performed, was the Pre-Input Inspection. This inspection consisted of a full aircraft walk around, enabling defects to be spotted and recorded. Any defects found during the Pre-Input check were then used to create additional Job Sheets, which were subsequently added to the Work Pack. Other components of the Pre-Input check included full systems checks (including engine runs) and removal of Cabin upholstery. Safety protectors were also placed onto seats and internal aircraft trim, to prevent unwanted and costly damage from occurring during maintenance. Once the Pre-Input inspection was complete,

maintenance on the aircraft could begin. An Engineer would review the tasks in the Work Pack, select one and then proceed to a computer to use the Aircraft Interactive Maintenance Manual (IMM). Here the engineer would select the aircraft variant, based on its production serial number and look through the vast array of maintenance procedures, to locate the Job Sheet task reference. The engineer would then print off the required maintenance procedure and review it prior to commencing the task. By conducting the work in this manner, the engineer is ensuring that the maintenance is carried out in accordance with company, manufacturer and airworthiness authority requirements. Included in the maintenance procedure were references to tools required to perform the job. If these tools were to be sourced from the Stores facility onsite, an engineer “tagged” out the tool using a numbered key fob. These fobs were specific to each engineer, allowing tools to be tracked and accounted for. The “tagging” method also prevented tools being left on an aircraft after maintenance. This reduced the risk of FOD (Foreign Object Debris) and increased safety as a result. If replacement parts were required for the maintenance task, the IMM was used to find the correct replacement part codes. The parts were then issued to the aircraft and a Pick Ticket was printed. This was then in turn handed to the stores department, who then issued the required parts. Pick tickets were used to track stock usage and trigger automatic stock ordering. With the correct procedure, tools and parts in hand, an engineer would then begin the maintenance process. Once complete, the engineer would sign the Work Pack Job Sheet, confirming the work had been completed. At this point they were then able to move onto the next task. The work carried out would then be independently checked by a senior engineer (usually the Lead Engineer). This added an extra layer of safety, as the work is independently checked to ensure aviation authority compliance. At the end of the maintenance process an RTS

An Insight into Aircraft Maintenance & Repair — Matthew Johnson

Inside the Aircraft MRO Facility

Aircraft Undergoing Routine Maintenance


Page | 11

(Return to Service) check is carried out. This involves checking system functionality post maintenance, replacing any loose customer items and removing protective covers from cabin interiors. At the end of the RTS check, the aircraft is towed onto the Maintenance Apron ready for departure. The crew or owners would then be escorted out to the aircraft by the customer service team and the aircraft would depart thus concluding the maintenance process.

Engineering Technician Day to Day Activities

A typical day for a person working at the MRO facility can see them being involved in a spectrum of activities, which can be varied across a range of aircraft. An example working day can be as follows: An Engineering Technician is given a work task which requires the removal of an aircraft fuselage. During a routine inspection, corrosion had been found on the main wing spar. Attempts to remove and treat the affected area through access panels had proved to be unsuccessful, and it is therefore decided to remove the fuselage structure from the wing to gain access to the affected area. One of the activities for this procedure is to remove fuel from the aircraft tanks, secure control cables and hydraulic lines and assist with the lifting process. During the lift, the Engineering Technician is required to assist with the removal of the connections holding the fuselage onto the wing

structure (mainly pipework, control cables and four large high tensile strength bolts). Another role that an Engineering Technician can be expected to be involved in is preparing aircraft for painting. Procedures for pre-painting involve the removal of flying controls and sealing of cabin and cargo doors, to prevent corrosive paint stripper intrusion. Aircraft painting can be an expensive process costing tens of thousands of pounds, therefore customers require that their aircraft are safely secured to prevent unwanted damage. After painting, the Engineering Technician is tasked with the re-installation of flying controls and full functional checks. Prior to installation, these controls had gone through a balancing process to ensure that the addition of new paint had not affected the control’s balance. This would

help prevent adverse aerodynamic flutter and thus reduce the risk of a structural failure. An Engineering Technician is expected to be able to carry out maintenance tasks ranging from Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) of aircraft leading edges using ultrasonic scanners, to cabin inspections and safety item testing. They can take part in aircraft ground testing, which involves testing engines and systems such as FADEC’s (Full Authority Digital Engine Controls) in the engine test bay. Calibration of aircraft flight instruments (known as Compass Swinging) can also undertaken. This provides Engineering Technicians with insight into how the on-board avionic systems are maintained and how they function during flight.

Concluding Remarks

This article has given an insight into the MRO Facility and the procedures carried out to maintain aircraft. The role of an Engineering Technician requires a wide range of technical knowledge, and reinforces the theory taught in a typical Aerospace Engineering degree. In fact, in some cases the work activities will go beyond any taught syllabus and require an individual to have a deep understanding of a subject area such as Avionic Systems, or Material Testing. It is hoped this article has provided you with an appreciation of the maintenance procedures that keep the fleets of aircraft around the world flying.

An Insight into Aircraft Maintenance & Repair — Matthew Johnson

Removal of Aircraft Fuselage Structure

The MRO Aircraft Paint Facility

A Cessna Citation Jet in its natural environment


Page | 12

Name the aircraft… the answer

We welcome your feedback. If you have any

suggestions for future lectures; the newsletter or

articles you would like to submit, please feel free to

e-mail us:

Joint Chairs

Jeremy Graham

[email protected]

Alisdair Wood

[email protected]

Branch Secretary

David McCallum

[email protected]

Newsletter Editor

Daniel Young

[email protected]

Yeovil Branch Committee

General Mailbox

[email protected]

For more information about the Society, or

alternatively, to become a member, please go to:

www.aerosociety.com

Wednesday 13th September

22nd Penrose Lecture

On the subject of

Flying the Aircraft of the Shuttleworth

Collection

Paul Shakespeare

Thursday 19th October

The RAF Apprentice Scheme

Derek Larkin

Thursday 16th November

The AW101 for Norway: Most Advanced SAR

Helicopter in the World

Steve Vellacott & Mark Goddard

Lecture subjects and dates may change due to

unforeseen circumstances

Contacting The Branch

2017 Upcoming Lectures & Events

Committee News

Deputy Chair & Archivist

David Gibbings, MBE

Secretary

David McCallum

Membership Secretary

Cliff Keating

Deputy Secretary

Sophie Hart

Branch Rules &

Website and Media

Michael Winder

MoD Liaison & Cadets

Craig Peaple

Treasurer

Jack Allen

Newsletter & Publicity

Daniel Young

Branches Committee

Robert Sawford

Young Persons

Committee

Daniel McKenna

Young Persons Network Representative

Eddie Wilson-Chalon

The RAeS Yeovil Branch Committee is

continually changing and growing to provide new and

improved services to our members. The current

committee members both elected and co-opted are:

Joint Chairmen

Jeremy Graham & Alisdair Wood

The Westland Interceptor was a fighter developed to Air Ministry Specification F.20/27. When tested in 1929 and 1930, it showed unsatisfactory handling characteristics and was rejected by the RAF in favour of the Hawker Fury biplane fighter.

Specification F.20/27 was for a fighter operating in the daylight interception role. The main requirement was that the fighter would be able to overtake, in the shortest possible time, an enemy aircraft passing overhead at 150 mph at an altitude of 20,000 feet. This put the emphasis on high speed and rate of climb.

branch newsletter - royal aeronautical society · 2020. 11. 30. · operating standards for...

Documents