补充运行的资料保存

在121R5文审过程中发现的问题。

CCAR 第121.700条补充运行的装载舱单、飞行放行单和运行飞行计划的处置
(c)除本条(d)款规定外,如果飞行在合格证持有人主运行基地以外的机场始发时,机长(或者合格证持有人授权的其他运行控制人员)应当在起飞前或者起飞后立即将本条(a)款列出的文件副本发送或者带回到主运行基地保存。

FAR 121.697   Disposition of load manifest, flight release, and flight plans: Supplemental operations.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, if a flight originates at a place other than the certificate holder’s principal base of operations, the pilot in command (or another person not aboard the airplane who is authorized by the certificate holder) shall, before or immediately after departure of the flight, mail signed copies of the documents listed in paragraph (a) of this section, to the principal base of operations.

这两个描述之间还是有差异的。中文说“授权的其他运行控制人员”,英文只说“授权的人员”,但要求不在飞机上。而且,英文版中还提到,发送的时间是“起飞前”或者“起飞后立即”。发送的方式是mail(我觉得fax和email也可以)副本,并且要求是signed签过字的副本。中文中没说“签过字的”。中文中“带回到”也容易引起歧义,让人以为随飞机带回。

不确定是当时翻译得不精确呢?还是FAR更新过描述了。反正我觉得英文的描述更准确一点。

OPSPEC A030 SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS BY A CERTIFICATE HOLDER AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT DOMESTIC OR FLAG OPERATIONS.

这条内容是在121R5文审时发现的,在中国的运行规范中存在一条“A0055 121部补充运行”的条款。条款说的是局方批准公司在C0039的范围内,不定期航班可以按定期载客的法律规章运行。

我在文审之前没注意过运行规范中有这样的描述,而且现有手册中补充运行权责有各种“混乱”。

我抱着怀疑的态度去找找原文的出处。在FAA的OPSPEC A030中也有相似的描述。略有区别的是,FAA说的是“补充运行”航班,而国内运规说的是“不定期航班”。之间差了一个全货机。

最后我对此条款还有一些疑惑。如果公司批准了A0055,那么补充运行的运行控制责任是否也一起转移给了签派员?但是121部中明确说了,补充运行时,运行副总的运行控制工作可以委托,但是责任不能委托。

121部和运行规范,谁大?

OpSpec C070, Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations

一直被问到国内运行规范C0039当中R、F、P、A机场的关系。比如,R机场是不是能当A用。以前都觉得是理所当然,没去找过出处。现在这个文件里说明了。

For Part 121 Operations, a Certificate Holder May Use a Regular, Refueling, or Provisional Airport. For part 121 operations, a certificate holder may use any regular, refueling,or provisional airport as an alternate airport, provided the airport is authorized for the type of aircraft being used. There is no need to dually(双重) designate an airport as an alternate for a particular aircraft type, if that airport is already authorized as a regular, provisional, or refueling airport for that aircraft type.

所以R、F、P机场本身就能作为A用。不需要重复说明。签派放行可以放行到R、F、P中的任何一个。

不过国内的法规里到没找到这么说过。

FAR part 125

前几天参加了波音计划在舟山交付飞机的会议,会议中说到波音会以Part125部的规则把飞机从美国调往舟山,然后再交付。所以我好奇125部的适用范围是什么。

§125.1 Applicability.
(a) ….this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved.

然后对于“common carriage is not involved ”的解释是§110.2

§110.2 Definitions
When common carriage is not involved or operations not involving common carriage means any of the following:
(1) Noncommon carriage.
(2) Operations in which persons or cargo are transported without compensation or hire.
(3) Operations not involving the transportation of persons or cargo.
(4) Private carriage.

所以,125部的运行有点像大型私人飞机,飞行只运行自己的雇员,这种服务不对大众(general public)开放。比如大型企业在各大工厂之间运送员工。所以波音向舟山的调机,就只能算成波音自己的飞机,不能承运别的公司的人,也不能载运别人的货物。

最简单的例子就是川普的川普号。

另一个例子就是,如果一个球队拥有一架自己的飞机。如果他只运送自己的球员,那就是125部,如果球队把这架飞机运送了别的球队,那就可能是135部或者121的补充运行了。

网上还有另一种说法(我不确定对不对),如果航空公司把一架飞机只用于少数的固定用户,也能算125部。

起飞返场限重,这事好扯。

发现这个大坑是因为在opt计算过程中,737-8和787的计算界面增加了无油重zfw的输入框子。按理说计算起飞重量时无所谓zfw是多少,那么为什么需要输入无油重呢?

===========第一层坑============

这个坑从25部的25.1001说起。

25.1001条要求飞机要配备放油系统,除非证明飞机起飞重量能满足在本场落地时的爬升性能。如果具备放油能力,可以放油15分钟后的重量来计算落地的爬升性能。

所以,事情就变成了这样:对于具有放油系统的飞机,在计算起飞最大重量时,考虑放15分钟油之后的重量是否能满足爬升性能。如果不满足,就要降低重量。但是如果放不了这么多油(如放油系统设计的限制,或者没加多少油)怎么办呢?只能减少无油重啦。

原先,飞机的最大结构限重设计得不是很大,所以限重不明显(或者说故意被忽视了)。但是随着新材料的发展,最大无油重可以做得很大。比如787,想象一下,如果在一个高原机场起飞,业载很大,但是航程很短(油很少,比如兰州满客飞西安),就会造成就算放了油,仍然不能满足爬升性能。

==========第二层坑==========

那么不具备放油系统的飞机怎么办呢?比如737系列。根据我现在了解的情况,波音似乎认为NG系列的737不受此条法规的限制,在起飞性能计算过程中没有这个返场的限制。但是在737max系列的性能中有这个限重,并且在fcom的签派性能页中增加了一个叫“放油限重”的表格。说来奇怪吧,对于一个没有放油系统的飞机,却有一个放油限重。所以在max系列飞机的性能计算时,是考虑返场限重的,因为没有放油系统,所以直接限了起飞全重。

至于为啥NG不考虑25.1001条,max系列考虑了,我猜是在因为在787审定过程中,对法规有了新的理解。

===========第三层坑==========

既然起飞重量受限于返场落地的爬升性能,那么可以改善爬升性能呀。波音的确也是这样做的,波音提供了选择。

通常,落地爬升性能分为进近爬升和复飞爬升,襟翼为30或40/15。为了提高性能,波音提供了30/5甚至15/1的襟翼选择。但是航空公司却需要为机组付出更多的培训成本。(我觉得波音把这个锅甩给了公司)

==========也许是个解决办法=======

在考虑这个大坑时,我们一直在纠结一个问题,这个限重究竟是制造商的审定限制还是公司的运行限制。如果是制造商取证时的限制(毕竟是25部),那么就不应该甩给公司运行时限制;如果是运行限制,那么,公司可以有更多的选择权,比如选择起飞备降场。可以对于某些落地爬升性能很差的起飞机场,每次都选择一个性能更好的起飞备降场。

MEL中的合适机场要求

最近遇到一个中央燃油泵的MEL,在案例分析过程中,大家对MEL里的一个描述产生了争议。MEL要求在起飞后,如果另一个中央燃油泵也不工作后,剩余的燃油能够到达一个合适机场

问题是这个合适机场要满足什么要求?有三种不同的选择:

1)只要机场满足基本的保障要求(比如长度、道面、消防等级),不考虑天气。
2)在1)的基础上,还要求在放行时天气满足落地标准
3)在1)的基础上,还要求在放行时天气满足备降标准,空中满足落地标准

在争执过程中,我去考古了一下“合适机场”这个概念。

《CCAR121R4》
第121.561条 发动机不工作时的着陆和报告
(a)对于所有飞机,在飞机发动机失效,或者为防止可能的损坏而停止发动机运转时,机长均应当按照飞行时间在距离最近的能安全着陆的合适机场着陆
第121.712条 定义
下列定义适用于本章:
(a)合适机场:是指达到第121.197条规定的着陆限制要求且局方批准合格证持有人使用的机场,它可能是下列两种机场之一:。。。。(不要求天气

《AC-121-FS-2012-009R1》
1.2 定义
下列定义适用于本咨询通告:
c. 延程运行可选备降机场(Suitable ETOPS Alternate)(CCAR-121部定义的合适机场):对于特定延程运行航线,不考虑当时的临时状况,列入合格证持有人运行规范的可选的航路备降机场。这些机场必须满足CCAR-121.197条规定的着陆限制要求。它可能是下列两种机场之一:。。。。。。。(不要求天气

《CCAR121R5》
第121.561条 没变
第121.712条 消失了。。。。。。。。(连定义都没了,怎么办

可见,这个合适机场的概念和ETOPS运行纠缠不清,以至于我找一下网上的定义,搜索出来的都是ETOPS的东西。其实我的运行并不牵涉到ETOPS,合适机场的概念仍然存在。

再看看FAA的情况:

FAR121
121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
121.7 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to those sections of part 121 that apply to ETOPS:
Adequate Airport means an airport that an airplane operator may list with approval from the FAA because that airport meets the landing limitations of §121.197 and is either—

AC 120-42A(已取消)

AC 120-42B
定义不存在。

根据以上对比,121R4中定义的合适机场,应该是Adequate Airport。FAA对于合适机场的定义在AC120-42A当中是有的,更新AC120-42B已经消失了,当前的FAR121也没有定义。
借用网上的一段话:“Officially AC 120-42A was cancelled and replaced by 120-42B, they did not transfer the definition of “suitable” airport. So that is why I asked.”

公司手册中也没有对合适机场有定义。

这个问题的争议重点在于,合适机场的定义是否需要考虑天气?是否应该考虑到备降标准?

后来我偶然看到,在机组训练手册FCTM里有关于合适机场的表述。因为在QRH中常常出现“在最近的合适机场落地”,机组训练手册对此专门做了说明。内容如下:

Landing at the Nearest Suitable Airport
“Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport” is a phrase used in the QRH. This section explains the basis for that statement and how it is applied.In a non-normal situation, the pilot-in-command, having the authority and responsibility for operation and safety of the flight, must make the decision to continue the flight as planned or divert. In an emergency situation, this authority may include necessary deviations from any regulation to meet the emergency. In all cases, the pilot-in-command is expected to take a safe course of action.
The QRH assists flight crews in the decision making process by indicating those situations where “landing at the nearest suitable airport” is required. These situations are described in the Checklist Instructions or the individual NNC. The regulations regarding an engine failure are specific. Most regulatory agencies specify that the pilot-in-command of a twin engine airplane that has an engine failure or engine shutdown should land at the nearest suitable airport at which a safe landing can be made.
A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator based on guidance material but, in general, must have adequate facilities and meet certain minimum weather and field conditions. If required to divert to the nearest suitable airport (twin engine airplanes with an engine failure), the guidance material also typically specifies that the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest air port. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane’s present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport.
For persistent smoke or a fire which cannot positively be confirmed to be completely extinguished, the safest course of action typically requires the earliest possible descent, landing and evacuation. This may dictate landing at the nearest airport appropriate for the airplane type, rather than at the nearest suitable airport normally used for the route segment where the incident occurs.

内容有点长。我把它全部贴出来,是因为少了上下文说不清。

文中说明了合适机场考虑的几个要素:必要的设施天气标准跑道情况

是否需要考虑天气标准的问题,已经有了答案。至少波音认为(我也觉得)需要考虑落地标准。所以本文开头的选择1)肯定不对。考虑天气是必要的。

那么,是否需要考虑在放行时,提高到备降标准呢?注意是放行时。

我认为(仅仅是我认为),有这个必要。我来说说我的理由。

想想ETOPS和飘降吧,和正常航班相比较,机长的决策范围变小了很多。比如上海飞北京,是一个正常航班,机长可以毫无忌讳的地选择他认为“就近”的合适机场,这种选择没有被飞机系统或物理条件“限制”。

但是ETOPS和飘降航班,这种选择的范围,被飞机系统或物理条件,限制在某几个机场中间(比如单发后的改航时限,大海和高山)。因此,在放行时,就需要提高为备降标准(ETOPS备降场和航路备降场)。

同样的,依据MEL放行时考虑另一个燃油泵也失效,机场的选择范围一样被限制了。这就是为什么我认为:在放行阶段,如果MEL出现了对合适机场的要求,那么签派员应该把选择的机场,写入放行单,并按备降标准放行,在空中满足落地标准。

==============================================================

题外话1:关于合适机场的定义,局方应该明确一下吧。

题外话2:FCTM中说到了不需要就近合适机场降落的情况,比如着火、烟雾、异味。

题外话3:考虑去最近的合适机场时,考虑的不是距离,而是时间。比如在飞机边上有个合适机场,飞机不可能一头栽向那个机场。只要考虑飞行时间最短的那个机场称为“最近”。

新机型引进之后90天内的运行熟悉要求

因为公司要引进737Max8,在做签派员培训的时候想到是否需要在90天内对新机型做个驾驶舱熟悉,所以就去翻看了121部。意外发现条款写的好像有点不对。

第121.501条飞行签派员的合格要求
(a)(3)对于新引进组类的飞机,在开始投入本规则运行后90天之内,不满足本款第(2)项中运行熟悉要求的人仍可以担任飞行签派员。

121中对于新引进的飞机说的是“组类”???不应该是型别吗??

英文原文是:

A person may serve as an aircraft dispatcher without meeting the requirement of this paragraph (a) for 90 days after initial introduction of the airplane into operations under this part.

英文原文不是group,而是the airplane。应该是型别的意思啊。

难道这些年我的理解都不对?还是翻译错误?

后来经过和其他人讨论后,可能我以前的确理解错了,121.501条的(a)款是针对组类来说的。包括运行熟悉的要求,都是按组类来说的,比如在737上做了初始训练和运行熟悉,然后做了320的转机型,就不需要做运行熟悉了。因为两个飞机属于一个组类。

这就解释了为什么(a)(3)款中说的是“组类”。

英文原文的(a)是这样写的:

(a) No certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations may use any person, nor may any person serve, as an aircraft dispatcher for a particular airplane group unless that person has, with respect to an airplane of that group, satisfactorily completed the following:。。。

这里是组类的一个型别,不是每一个型别。

 

CCAR121.353的无人烟地区是什么意思

121.353条的内容如下:

除经局方批准外,合格证持有人在无人烟地区上空或者在局方规定的需要配备紧急情况下进行搜寻和救援的设备的任何其他地域上空(局方在该合格证持有人的运行规范中规定)实施运行时,该飞机应当装备有下列设备。。。。。。

有人问我这个无人烟地区到底指中国的什么地方?

我只能说我也不知道。似乎国内没有人给过定义。

正好找到一份FAA的NOTICE:《Operations Over Uninhabited Terrain Areas》

The requirements of § 121.353 were implemented to increase the chance of survival and rescue for airplane occupants in the event of an accident or emergency in areas of uninhabited terrain. The Preamble to the Final Rule that amended § 121.353 in 1995 (60 FR 65832) did not attempt to change requirements for flying over uninhabited terrain, nor did it attempt to clarify or amend the definition of “uninhabited terrain.” The Preamble stated that defining uninhabited terrain is “not necessary …[s]ince implementation is on a case-by-case basis.” Currently, no legal interpretation that speaks to the definition of “uninhabited terrain” exists and none are expected.

妈的原来FAA也说没定义。顺手找到文中提到的1995(60 FR 65832):

In addition, this rulemaking does not define ‘‘uninhabited terrain.’’ When the predecessor regulation to § 121.353 was proposed in CAB draft release 58–24 in 1960, ‘‘uninhabited terrain’’ was defined as ‘‘flights for long distances over frigid or tropical land areas for which the Director finds such equipment to be necessary for search and rescue operations because of the character of the terrain to be flown over.’’ When the rule was adopted, the wording was changed to provide the Administrator more flexibility in identifying uninhabited areas.
Since implementation is on a case-by-case basis through operations specifications, it was determined that the proposed wording was not necessary. This provision has been in effect for over 30 years without any problem about the meaning of ‘‘uninhabited areas.’’

其实我看不太懂1995(60 FR 65832)到底说的是什么,看样子是在修订规章时的流水账。

所以,FAA的解释说在1960年的时候有过解释,但是为了更便于管理者灵活地使用这一条,解决办法是在运规中case-by-case的批准。

但是我好像也没看到过有国内公司批准这条运规的。有谁见过请告诉我。

 

港澳台算国内燃油政策还是国际燃油政策?

首先,我想讨论的不是一个政治问题。
我想讨论的不是一个政治问题。
我想讨论的不是一个政治问题。(重要的事情说三遍)

为啥我说不是一个政治问题,因为CCAR中的“国际运行”对应的是FAR的”Flag Operation“。

根据FAR 110.2 Definitions

Flag operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this definition at the locations described in paragraph (2) of this definition:
(2) Locations:
(i) Between any point within the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States and any point outside the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States, respectively; or
(ii) Between any point within the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the District of Columbia and any point outside the 48 contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(iii) Between any point outside the U.S. and another point outside the U.S.

可见Flag并没有和政治问题(国境线)有什么关系。

然后,在CCAR121中说了:

国际定期载客运行,是指符合本条(a)款第(1)项规定,在一个国内地点和一个国外地点之间,两个国外地点之间,或者一个国内地点与另一个由局方专门指定、视为国外地点的国内地点之间的运行;

那么局方在什么地方指定呢?经过厦航一位姐姐的指点。原来在运规A0023有”国内定期121部承运人到特定国外(地区)机场的国内运行”。如果有港澳台的机场需要按国内运行,那就可以批准在这一页上。