Bombardier CRJ Series
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transport Canada Civil Aviation Team Members:
Carl Marquis & Richard Milton
Report Amended by:
________________ DATE: _______
Paul Carson Flight Technical Inspector
Transport Canada, Safety and Security
Commercial & Business Aviation, Operational Standards
Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0N8
Telephone: (613) 990-1075
Fax: (613) 954-1602
APPROVED__________ DATE ________
Program Manager, Flight Technical
Transport Canada, Safety and Security
Commercial & Business Aviation, Operational Standards
Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0N8
Telephone: (613) 993-4692
Fax: (613) 954-1602
TRANSPORT CANADA AND BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE MANAGEMENT
Wayne Chapin Date
Chief, Certification & Operational Standards
Commercial & Business Aviation
Transport Canada, Civil Aviation
Donald Sherritt Date
Director, Standards Branch
Transport Canada, Civil Aviation
Due to the limited nature and scope of the changes to Bombardier’s
CL-600-2D24 and its latest derivative, the CL-600-2D15, this particular tripartite operational evaluation was conducted through analysis. Operational evaluations carried out using an analysis process are to be considered an anomaly and each case will be judged on its own merits. In all instances, regulatory authorities will continue to exercise their right to conduct a thorough OEB/JOEB/FSB for any new airplane type/model/variant being considered for introduction into service.
|Revision No.||Page #s||Date|
|2008-01||27, 117, 118||2008-10-14|
The following acronyms are used in this report:
AC Advisory Circular
ACP Approved Check Pilot
ADG Air Driven Generator
AEG Aircraft Evaluation Group
AFCS Automatic Flight Control System
AFM Aircraft Flight Manual
AQP Advanced Qualification Program
AOM Aircraft Operating Manual
ARCDU Audio and Radio Control Display Unit
BA Bombardier Aerospace
BATC Bombardier Aerospace Training Centre
BFTC Bombardier Flight Test Centre
BRAD Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAR Canadian Aviation Regulations
CASS Commercial Air Service Standard
CBA Commercial & Business Aviation
CCQ Common Crew Qualification
CFIT Controlled Flight Into Terrain
CPT Cockpit Procedures Trainer
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EFIS Electronic Flight Instrument System
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FCP Flight Control Panel
F/E Flight Engineer
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FMA Flight Mode Annunciator
FMS Flight Management System
FSB Flight Standardization Board
FTD Flight Training Device
GLD Ground Lift Dumpers
GPS Global Positioning System
HGS Heads-up Guidance System
ILS Instrument Landing System
INS Inertial Navigational System
IOE Initial Operating Experience
JAA Joint Aviation Authorities
JOEB Joint Operational Evaluation Board
MCRs Master Common Requirements
MDRs Master Differences Requirements
MFF Mixed Fleet Flying
NSEP National Simulator Evaluation Programme
ODRs Operator Differences Requirements
OEB Operational Evaluation Board
OEBT Operational Evaluation Board Team
PC Proficiency Check
PFD Primary Flight Display
POI Principal Operations Inspector
PPC Pilot Proficiency Check
PRM Pilot Reference Manual
PTT Part Task Trainer
QRH Quick Reference Handbook
SLD Super Cooled Liquid Droplet
SLF Supervised Line Flying
TCAS Traffic Collision Avoidance System
TC Transport Canada
TCCA Transport Canada Civil Aviation
TLI Transition Line Indoctrination
This consolidated report details the 2005 Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) findings on the latest CL-600 model/variant, the CL-600-2D15 (CRJ705), as well as dealing with production improvements that have recently been made to the CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900). It also incorporates two previous OEB reports that addressed type rating and mixed fleet flying (MFF) for the CL-600-2B19 (CRJ100/200/440), the CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702) and the CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900).
Master Common Requirements (MCRs), Master Differences Requirements (MDRs), and Operator Differences Requirements (ODRs) tables, which address the differences between all aircraft in the CRJ Series, are included.
The Bombardier CRJ is offered as four separate models/variants: CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and now the CL-600-2D15. Standard, Extended Range and Long Range versions of these models are available. While some of them are available in all three versions, others are available only in two versions.
All of these aircraft are marketed as the Bombardier CRJ. At this time, there are eight different series of the CRJ available to industry. For clarification purposes, a brief history of the Bombardier CRJ Series of aircraft is provided in the following paragraphs.
The Model CL-600-2B19, CRJ100, the first and smallest aeroplane in the Bombardier CRJ Series, entered service in 1992. The CL-600-2B19, the base aircraft for most comparison exercises, employs older system technology when compared to other CRJ variants.
It is marketed in three separate series: the CRJ-100, CRJ-200 and the CRJ-440.
The CRJ Series 200 and 440 are both equipped with an upgraded version (CF34-3B1) of the original CF34-3A1 General Electric powerplant installed on the CRJ Series 100.
Maximum capacity is 50 passengers although some aircraft have been delivered with less passenger seating. In particular, the CRJ-440 derives its series number from its 44-seat configuration.
Each product can be obtained in an extended-range or long-range version. The only difference between these versions is the maximum certified takeoff weight.
The Model CL-600-2C10 was the first new variant from the original 50-seat aeroplane. Product improvements included, but were not limited to: a fuselage stretch; FADEC-controlled engines; a new wing with leading edge slats; a forward under-floor cargo compartment; and upgraded and automated aircraft systems.
The aircraft entered service in 2000 and was marketed as the:
CRJ 700 (68 seats);
CRJ701 (70 seats); and
CRJ702 (77 seats).
Each of these CRJ products can be obtained in a Standard or Extended-Range version. The only difference between the standard and extended-range versions is the maximum certified take-off weight.
The CL-600-2D24 was the third CRJ variant to arrive on the scene. Basically a stretched version of the CL‑600-2C10, product improvements included, but were not limited to: a fuselage stretch; increased thrust output from the engines; additional over-wing exits, and a larger forward under-floor cargo compartment.
The aircraft entered service in 2002 and was marketed as the CRJ-900 (up to 90 passengers). The CRJ-900 could be obtained as a standard or extended-range version; the only difference between the versions is the maximum operating weights.
In 2005, CL-600-2D24 short field takeoff and landing performance enhancements were introduced to the production line configuration. Performance enhancements consisted of: a larger wingspan (bigger winglets); software changes; new slat/flat relationship with a selection of Flap 20; reduction of MMO to 0.84M above FL340; and an optional long-range (increase operating-weight) version.
The latest model, the CL-600-2D15, entered service in May 2005. It is identical to the enhanced CL-600-2D24 except it is certified for only 75 passengers. Marketed as the CRJ Series 705, the aircraft is available in standard, extended range and long-range versions. Again, the version differences are only in weight limitations.
It’s 75-seat limitation using the same fuselage as its genesis, the CRJ Series 900, permits air carriers to configure the cabin with club seating for business-class passengers. Furthermore, since the Series 705 retains the same weight limits as its derivative, it is able to benefit from increases in available range by maximizing the amount of fuel up-lift without having to deplane passengers during high-density field conditions.
In September 2000, Transport Canada (TC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an operational evaluation on the CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700) as a joint effort to simultaneously meet the regulatory requirements of the respective authorities. Each civil aviation authority used the results of the joint evaluation to produce their own report specific to their particular regulatory requirements. The reports, while similar in intent between the authorities involved, differed somewhat in detail.
Both reports state that the findings of the 2000 OEB determined that the CL-600-2B19 and CL-600-2C10 were to be considered the same type (CL-65) for pilot type rating and training purposes.
The CL-600-2C10 training programme proposed by the Bombardier Aerospace Training Centre (BATC) met the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) requirements for initial Technical Ground Training and a Level C Flight Training Programme. As such, it provided Principal Operations Inspectors (POIs) with sufficient guidance to grant approval for the initial training of Canadian pilots to operate the CL-600-2C10 in both a private and commercial operation. In addition, the proposed BATC pilot transition courses for CL-600-2B19 and CL-600-2C10 aircraft were deemed to be similarly suitable.
In July 2001, Bombardier Aerospace (BA) approached TC, the FAA and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) with a request to conduct a tripartite OEB for the CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900). BA proposed that the CL-600-2D24 was a variant of the CL-600-2B19, the base aircraft for comparison purposes for the OEB, and should therefore have the same type rating (CL-65). In addition, BA submitted that pilots holding a CL-65 rating (or FAA/JAA equivalent) achieved on the CL-600-2B19 or CL-600-2C10 should be able to convert to the CL-600-2D24 after completion of differences training. Furthermore, it was suggested that the same qualification criteria should apply to pilots who achieve the CL-65 type rating on the CL-600-2D24 and subsequently convert to the CL-600-2C10 or CL-600-2B19. BA proposed that differences training would include ground school to cover technical differences. Checking would occur in either an appropriately approved manoeuvre device or the aircraft. The manufacturer provided the OEB with proposed ODRs Tables (Appendix 1) to be used as a basis for the evaluation.
(TC, the FAA and the JAA conducted an operational evaluation in August 2002 on the CL-600-2D24 as a joint effort to simultaneously meet the regulatory requirements of each respective authority. Each civil aviation authority used the results of the evaluation to produce a report specific to their particular regulatory requirements. Once again, while similar in intent between the three civil aviation authorities involved, the reports differ somewhat in detail.
The OEB was conducted in three phases using the processes detailed in TC document Aircraft Type Qualification, dated 29 January 1999, and the FAA document Advisory Circular AC 120-53 Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated Under Federal Aviation Regulation FAR Part 121, dated 13 May 1991.
In Phase 1, four pilots (FAA and TC crews) who did not hold a CL-65 type rating were given the proposed CL-600-2D24 Initial Training Course by BATC. Ground school and simulator training was completed over the period August 19th through September 12th, 2002.
All four CL-600-2D24 initial course pilots successfully completed simulator and airborne proficiency checks that met the requirements for issuance of a type rating by the FAA and TC.
Prior to the commencement of the differences course, two CL-600-2B19 pilots were given recurrent training and a baseline proficiency check in a simulator to confirm competency on the base aircraft. All candidates completed these checks to an acceptable standard.
Using a CL-600-2D24 flight test aircraft, a T1 test was conducted in accordance with AC120-53 by three CL‑600-2C10 pilots. The test was deemed successful and a Level A was assigned to the functional differences between the CL-600-2C10 and the CL-600-2D24.
In addition, a T2 test (handling characteristics) as detailed in AC 120-53 was conducted using the CL-600-2B19 qualified pilots (JAA and TC) on a CL-600-2D24 aircraft in Wichita, Kansas. Successful passing of the T2 test allowed the OEB to proceed to T3 differences training validation on October 26th.
During the T3 process, the four pilots (FAA and TC), who had just successfully completed the CL-600-2B24 Initial Course, were given the proposed differences training to convert pilots from the CL-600-2D24 to the CL-600-2B19 aircraft. The CL 600-2B19 crews (JAA and TC) received differences training for the CL-600-2B24. All candidates successfully passed simulator proficiency checks.
Scheduled to begin deliveries in May 2005, Bombardier introduced enhancements for the baseline CL 600-2D24, CRJ Series 900, and coincidentally launched the new Model CL-600-2D15, CRJ Series 705 aircraft. The Series 705 aircraft is identical to the enhanced CRJ-900 except that it is certified only as a 75-passenger aircraft.
TC, FAA, and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) conducted a preliminary pilot type rating assessment in March 2005 based upon manufacturing details and TC flight test reports. Due to the limited scope of the changes to the originally evaluated and certified CRJ-900, all three authorities agreed that the operational evaluation of the new model need only be done by analysis, as provided for in the FAA/JAA/Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) Common Procedures Document For Conducting Operational Evaluation Boards publication.
On April 19-20 the two-member TC evaluation team arrived on-site in Montreal and conducted their operational evaluation of the CL-600-2D15 aeroplane documentation, operating manuals, checklists, training programs and courseware, as well as the manufacturer’s proposed MCRs, MDRs, and ODRs. Concurrently, the representatives from both the FAA and EASA conducted a similar evaluation at their own locations using the same information forwarded by Bombardier.
During the period of 2-4 May 2005, members from all three authorities met at the FAA’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) offices in Long Beach to wrap-up and consolidate the findings of their respective evaluations.
Collectively, the three TCCA OEB determined that the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 are to be considered the same type (CL-65) for pilot type rating and training purposes. The close similarity of the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24, and the CL-600-2D15 enables a single training course, including simulator, to be provided to cover all three aircraft.
The training programs proposed by BATC meet the requirements for initial Technical Ground Training and a Level C Flight Training Program contained in Paragraph 725.124 (6) of the Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS). As such, these programs can be used by POIs to assist them in approving training programs to operate the CL-600-2B19 (CRJ100/200/440), CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702), CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900) and CL-600-2D15 (CRJ-705) in a commercial service or private operation (s604).
In addition, the proposed BATC pilot differences courses between the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 aircraft are similarly suitable for the training of Canadian pilots operating the applicable aircraft in a mixed fleet operation in a commercial service or private operation.
This OEB Report establishes the type rating and master training pilot checking and currency requirements applicable to pilots operating the following Bombardier CRJ Series aircraft: CL-600-2B19 (CRJ100/200/440), CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702), CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900) and CL-600-2D15 (CRJ705).
It also specifies the TC master differences training, checking and currency requirements (MDR) for pilots holding a CL-65 type rating for a particular CRJ aircraft and then converting to one or more of the other three models/variants.
This report also addresses the operational suitability of the CL-600-2B19 (CRJ100/200/440), CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700/701/702), CL-600-2D24 (CRJ900) and CL-600-2D15 (CRJ705) for Commercial Service under Subpart 705 of the CARs and a Private Operator under Subpart 604 of the CARs. Canadian commercial operators may use this report in the development of flight crew training programmes required by the CAR. POI may use it for guidance in the approval of training programmes, for the conduct of Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPC) required by Section 705.106 of the CARs, and for application of Part IV of the CARs requirements for issuance of type ratings.
The provisions of this report are effective until amended, superseded, or withdrawn as a result of a subsequent operational evaluation.
The guidelines and recommendations contained in this report apply to POIs, CBA Inspectors, and Approved Check Pilots (ACP) employed by Canadian commercial operators.
Base Aircraft - An operator designated aircraft or group of aircraft used as a reference to compare differences with other aircraft within an operator's fleet.
Common Type Rating - A single pilot type rating assigned to two or more aircraft, which have separate type certificates and are not related as derivative aircraft (for example, B-757 and B-767).
Currency - Is recent experience necessary for safe operation of aircraft types or variants as designated by the OEB. When addressing flight experience required by the CAR, currency is considered to have the same meaning as recency of experience (also see Recency of Experience).
Configuration - Aircraft physical features that are distinguishable by pilots with respect to differences in systems, cockpit geometry, visual cut-off angles, controls, displays, aircraft geometry and/or number of required crew.
Difference - A change that may affect crew knowledge, skills, and/or abilities, or otherwise alters the crew interface with the aircraft (for example, control/indicator relocation, addition, deletion, and/or change in function; modified panel scan requirements; increase/decrease in operational tasks; change/improvement in technology; etc.).
Difference Levels - Specify TC requirements proportionate to and corresponding with increasing differences between groups of variants. A range of five difference levels in order of increasing requirements, identified as A through E, are each specified for training, checking and currency.
Differences Training - The training required for crewmembers who have qualified and flown a particular aeroplane to assure the necessary knowledge and skills to safely serve in the same capacity on a particular variant of that aeroplane.
Flight Characteristics - Flight characteristics are handling qualities or performance characteristics perceivable by a flight crew. Flight characteristics relate to the natural aerodynamic response of an aeroplane, particularly as affected by changes in configuration and/or flight path related parameters (for example, flight control use, flap extension/retraction, airspeed change, etc.).
Operations Evaluation Board (OEB) - The TC board responsible for preparation and revision of OEB Reports. The board is responsible for the specification of training, checking, currency and type-rating requirements, if necessary, for Canadian certificated civil aircraft.
Handling Characteristics - Means the manner in which the aircraft responds with respect to rate and magnitude of pilot initiated control inputs to the primary flight control surfaces (for example, ailerons, elevator, rudder, spoilers, etc.).
Major Change - A change or changes within an aircraft type or related types which significantly affect crew interface with the aircraft such as: flight characteristics; normal, non-normal or emergency procedures; recall action items; design or number of propulsion units; change in number of required crew; etc.
Master Common Requirements (MCRs) - MCRs are requirements applicable to crew qualification which pertain to all variants of the same type, common type, or related types. MCRs are specified by the OEB when an aircraft is originally type certificated and are revised as necessary when variants are developed. When variants exist MCRs specify only those items that are common to all variants.
Master Difference Requirements (MDRs) - MDRs are those requirements applicable to crew qualification which pertain to differences between variants of the same type, common type, or related types. MDRs are specified by the OEB in terms of difference levels. MDRs apply between particular pairs of variants or variant groups, and are shown on an MDR table.
Minor Change - A change other than a major change.
Mixed Fleet - A particular operator's fleet which contains a base aircraft and one or more variants of a same type, common type or related type aircraft.
Mixed Fleet Flying (MFF) - MFF is operation of a base aircraft and one or more variants of the same type, common type, related type or a different type by one or more flight crew members, between training or checking events.
Initial Operating Experience (IOE) - IOE acquired on a particular aircraft type. For Subpart 705 operations, IOE includes line indoctrination, line check, and consolidation period.
Operational Characteristics - As used with respect to aircraft, means those features which are distinguishable by limitations, flight characteristics, normal procedures, non-normal procedures, alternate or supplementary procedures or manoeuvres.
Operator Difference Requirements (ODRs) - ODRs are a formal description of differences between variants flown by a particular operator, with a corresponding list of CAR compliance methods pertinent to training, checking and currency.
Proficiency - Proficiency is the possession of sufficient knowledge of aircraft systems, characteristics, limitations, procedures, and necessary skills to competently and safely perform assigned duties. Performance of assigned duties is considered to include the ability to accomplish required manoeuvres and procedures within or in accordance with established criteria.
Qualification - The combination of applicable experience, training, checking, certification, currency and any other special requirements as defined in the CAR or the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), which permit authorization to serve as a crewmember for a specific crew position in air carrier operations.
Recency of Experience - With respect to flight experience as required by the CAR, means a pilot’s completion of the required number of takeoffs and landings as manipulator of controls within the preceding 90 days, in an aircraft of same type, common type, or related type as specified by the OEB. With respect to training means the number of days since completion of an approved flight, ground, or simulator training program and completion of a pertinent check, if applicable. With respect to other applications means meeting pertinent OEB criteria as designated in Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports for a given type, common type, or related type aircraft. Recency of experience is considered to have the same meaning as the term currency when used in this AC and FSB reports (also see Currency).
Related Type Rating - A different pilot type rating assigned to a variant with the same or an amended type certificate (for example, B-747-400 is related to the B747-100/300) or a variant with a different type certificate.
Same Type Rating - A single pilot type rating assigned to two or more variants that have a single type certificate (for example, DH8 for the DH8-100, DH8-200, DH8- 300 and DH8-400 series).
Series - As used with respect to aircraft, means those aircraft with a single type certificate which have a specific derivative designation usually defined by the manufacturer and which usually result in an amended type certificate (for example, B-737-100, B-737-200, and B-737-300).
Supervised Line Flying (SLF) - A specific type of IOE during which a pilot occupies a specific crew position and performs particular assigned duties for that crew position which are related to post qualification skill enhancement.
Training Footprint - A training footprint is a summary description of a training program, usually in short tabular form, showing training subjects, modules, procedures, manoeuvres or other program elements which are planned for completion during each day of training.
Type Certificate - Original Type Certificate: A new type certificate for an aircraft for which no previous type certificate has been issued. Amended Type Certificate: An existing type certificate modified to include changes. Supplemental Type Certificate: A type certificate issued to modify an aircraft without change to the existing type certificate for that aircraft.
Type Rating - A type rating is a "one time" permanent endorsement on a pilot certificate, recorded by TC, which is required by the CAR in order to serve as pilot-in-command (PIC) of a Canadian civil large or turbojet aircraft. As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges and limitations of pilots, means a specific make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications, which do not change its handling or flight characteristics. The term "new" type rating is used when a pilot type rating is first assigned during the initial certification of a new aircraft type. The terms "different" or "separate" type rating are used when an additional pilot type rating is assigned to a variant which does not qualify for a "same" or "common" type rating.
Variant - A variant is an aircraft or a group of aircraft with the same characteristics that have pertinent differences from a base aircraft. Pertinent differences are those that require different or additional flight crew knowledge, skills and/or abilities that affect flight safety.
CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONAL EVALUATION BOARD REPORT for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15
In accordance with Personnel Licensing and Training Standard 421.40, the pilot type rating for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 in Canada is designated as the CL65. Type ratings for individual aircraft within the series will be designated by TC and published in PART IV - PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING STANDARDS - Annex A. Training, checking and currency requirements for pilots who convert from the CL-600-2B19, the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or the CL-600-2D15 to any other CRJ variant, will be discussed below.
MCRs are requirements applicable to crew qualifications common to the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and the CL-600-2D15 (CL65 series). The MCR in this report specify only those items that are common to all variants.
The approach aircraft category and resultant approach minima are determined by the airspeed at which the aircraft is to be manoeuvred during the final approach segment for a straight-in or circling approach.
The approach profiles are the same for the base and all variant aircraft.
Approach speeds are dependent upon aircraft weight. Landing weights for the CL-600-2D15 and the CL-600-2D24 are the heaviest while the CL-600-2B19 is the lightest in the Series of aircraft. Nevertheless, critical speeds are presented to the pilot in a standardized manner for the base and all variant aircraft.
Immediate Action items are with minor exceptions, identical for the base and all variant aircraft. Abnormal and emergency procedures are presented in Quick Reference Handbooks of an identical format for all aircraft. Although individual steps may differ, the steps are carried out under the guidance of the handbook in a logical decision-making manner.
|Flap Setting (degrees)||CL-600-2B19||CL-600-2C10||CL-600-2D24||CL-600-2D15|
|8||230 KIAS||230 KIAS||230KIAS||230KIAS|
|20||230 KIAS||230 KIAS||220KIAS||220KIAS|
|30||185 KIAS||185 KIAS||185KIAS||185KIAS|
|45||170 KIAS||170 KIAS||170KIAS||170KIAS|
Table 1. Maximum Flap Speed Vfe
The minimum height for the use of the autopilot is 600 feet AGL following takeoff for all four aircraft.
The takeoff profiles are similar for all four aircraft. The only difference between the four aircraft is that the CL 600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 have one additional callout for flap retraction.
There are no special or unique requirements common to the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 beyond those specified above and those contained in Subparts 604, 605, 704 and 705 of the CARs.
The intent of this section is to address only those requirements applicable to the crew qualifications that pertain to the CL-600-2B19, the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 aircraft. Cockpit commonality with the original regional jet has been retained such that CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 crew operating procedures are very similar to the CL-600-2B19. Flight characteristics are also similar for the base and all variant aircraft.
Given these design characteristics, the table below is specified in terms of the minimum acceptable difference level as defined in the JAA/FAA/TC Common Procedures Document for Operational Evaluation Boards. The MDRs will be applied to the CL-600-2D24, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2C10 and CL-600-2B19 and through the Operator’s Differences Requirements.
|A||SELF INSTRUCTION||N/A OR INTEGRATED WITH NEXT PC||N/A|
|B||AIDED INSTRUCTION||TASK OR SYSTEM CHECK||SELF REVIEW|
|C||SYSTEMS DEVICES||PARTIAL CHECK USING DEVICE||DESIGNATED SYSTEM|
|D||MANOEUVRE DEVICES**||PARTIAL PC USING DEVICE *||DESIGNATED MANOEUVRE (S)|
|E||SIMULATOR C/D OR AIRCRAFT #||FULL PC USING SIMULATOR C/D OR AIRCRAFT *||AS PER REGULATIONS
(TAKEOFFS & LANDINGS IN SIMULATOR C/D OR THE AIRCRAFT)
Table 2. Difference Level Summary
# = AT LEVEL E – NEW TYPE RATING IS NORMALLY ASSIGNED
* = IOE/SLF/ MAY BE REQUIRED ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS
PC = PROFICIENCY CHECK
** = FFS or aircraft may be used to accomplish specific manoeuvres
MDRs for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 are shown in the Table 3 below. These apply to operators whose crews operate any combination of aircraft, and also apply for transition between any combinations of the four aircraft. The MDRs in Training/Checking/ Currency are specified in accordance with the criteria contained in JAA/FAA/TC Common Procedures Document for Operational Evaluation Boards. The table is read vertically by selecting the column appropriate to the FROM AEROPLANE and then selecting the cell with the TO AEROPLANE. (For example, from the CL-600-2B19 to the CL-600-2D24: C/C/B* specifies: “Differences Training” using Systems Devices / “Partial Check” using a Device / “Currency” maintained through Self Review with the initial currency requirement for transition line indoctrination. Reference to the Difference Level Summary on Table 2 will be helpful in determining what are the various requirements.
|AEROPLANE TYPE RATING: CL-65 series||FROM AEROPLANE|
|CL-600-2B19||----||C / C / B*||C / C / B*||C / C / B*|
|CL-600-2C10||C / C / B*||----||A / A / A||A / A / A|
|CL-600-2D15||C / C / B*||A / A / A||----||A / A / A|
|CL-600-2D24||C / C / B*||A / A / A||A / A / A||----|
Requirement for Transition Line Indoctrination
Transition Line Indoctrination (TLI) may be specified in certain circumstances and is authorized for crewmembers that have qualified and served in the same capacity on the same group of aeroplanes. TLI is a specific type of initial operating experience in which a pilot occupies a specific crew position (not in the observer seat) and performs particular assigned duties related to post qualification skill enhancement while under supervision. Supervision is by a pilot qualified to conduct the TLI and is typically a check pilot. TLI is not accomplished until after a crewmember is trained and, if applicable, checked to perform duties for that particular crew position. In some instances supervised line flying is identified when MCRs and ODRs are approved.
There are a variety of reasons why the OEB may specify TLI in conjunction with master difference requirements. One or more of the reasons described below may apply:
- Introduction of new aircraft types or variants;
- Introduction of new systems (e.g., Flight Management System (FMS), TCAS, Omega, INS);
- Introduction of new operations (e.g., oceanic operations);
- Experience for a particular crew position (e.g., PIC, Second-In-Command (SIC), F/E);
- Post qualification skill refinement (e.g., refining alternate or multiple ways to use particular equipment to increase operating efficiency, operating flexibility, or convenience);
- Special characteristics (e.g., unique airports, mountainous areas, unusual weather, special air traffic control procedures, non-standard runway surfaces, etc.).
The CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and the CL-600-2D15 are considered to be functionally equivalent and minimum differences training when transitioning between the three variants are required. In the case of pilots moving from the CL-600-2B19 to the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15, operators should provide TLI in accordance with CAR requirements. Similarly, pilots moving from the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or the CL-600-2D15 to the CL-600-2B19, operators should provide TLI in accordance with CAR requirements. This requirement is intended to permit pilots to obtain additional operating experience in order to become fully cognizant of the differences in landing characteristics/techniques as a result of attitude differences related to fuselage length and landing weights and landing gear design differences between the base aircraft and the variants. In certain specific cases whereby the operator’s approved differences training program is immediately followed by level D simulator training and a PPC on the new variant, the requirement to conduct TLI may be waived.
In 2000, the OEB conducted a two-way evaluation of the CL-600-2B19 (base aircraft and) the CL-600-2C10 (variant aircraft).
In 2002, the OEB conducted a three aircraft comparison evaluation, the CL-600-2D24 against the CL-600-2B19 as base aircraft and CL-600-2C10 as a variant aircraft. The previous 2000 ODR tables received minor revision.
In 2005, the OEB evaluated the CL-600-2D15 against the CL-600-2B19 as base aircraft and the CL-600-2C10 and CL-600-2D24 as variant aircraft. Once again, minor revisions to previous ODR tables were made. All conclusions with respect to training/checking/currency contained in this report are applicable only to the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 in Canadian commercial service (Subparts 705 and 704 of the CARs) and Private Operator operations (Subpart 604 of the CARs).
ODR tables are used to show an operator's compliance method for meeting the identified aircraft differences in mixed fleet flying (*) operations. Representative ODR tables for operators conducting mixed fleet operations with the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and/or CL-600-2D15 are listed in Appendix 1 of this report. The ODR tables represent an acceptable means to comply with MDR provisions for the aircraft evaluated based upon specific differences and compliance methods. The tables do not necessarily represent the only acceptable means of compliance for operators with aircraft having other differences, where compliance methods (e.g. devices, simulators, etc.) are different, or for combinations of aircraft not evaluated. For operators flying variants similar to those used for the ODR table development and utilizing the same compliance methods, the ODR tables in Appendix 1 have been found acceptable by TC. Equivalent tables, therefore, may be approved by the POI of a particular operator.
Operators flying the CL-600-2B19 base aircraft and/or the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15 variant aircraft with differences not shown on, or addressed by, the acceptable ODR tables attached in Appendix 1, or operators seeking different means of compliance, must prepare and seek TC approval of specific ODR tables pertinent to their fleet. New ODR tables proposed by operators should be coordinated with TC’s Program Manager Flight Technical, Operational Standards Commercial and Business Aviation in Ottawa to ensure consistent treatment of variants between various operators’ ODR tables and compatibility of the MDR table with MDR provisions.
An operator retains the approved ODR tables. The Program Manager Flight Technical retains copies of the approved CL-65 series ODR tables.
*CL-65 series MFF is defined as operations in which crews alternately fly the CL-600-2B19 and CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 or CL-600-2D24 within a bid period or between PPC/training events.
Note: All pilot training required by Subpart 705 of the CARs applies to initial qualification on the CL‑600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15. Once qualified on a CL-600 variant, crews transitioning between the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and/or CL-600-2D15 can achieve training credit as documented in this report.
|Newly Qualified On Aircraft||IOE as per CAR||Differences Training||TLI||MFF|
|Qualified On Aircraft||Differences Training||TLI||MFF|
MFF - Alternating Training
Air operators with flight crews operating the CL-600-2B19 and CL-600-2C10 and/or CL-600-2D24 and/or CL 600-2D15 may alternate simulator training provided the currency requirements are maintained. The operator may choose one variant as its base aircraft, and provide annual technical ground training on the base aircraft with differences technical ground training on the variant(s).
Flight Control Panel (FCP);
Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA);
(FADEC if applicable;
(FMS (* an expanded training footprint should be considered for pilots without previous FMS experience)
Engine (or thrust) Mode Annunciator
Aileron PCU Runaway;
Dual Hydraulic System Malfunctions (System 1 or 2 and 3);
Air Driven Generator (ADG) Deployment;
Dutch Roll (with and without both yaw dampers operative;
ILS Approach on Standby Instruments;
Landing with Ground Lift Dumpers (GLD) not deployed;
Aircraft performance in low energy go-around situations;
Circling approach and manoeuvring at night;
Flight Training -Full Flight Simulator (Continued)
Effects of wing leading edge contamination;
Inadvertent thrust reverser deployment;
GPS (if applicable);
HGS (if applicable);
Special event training is recommended for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15. Such training should be conducted to improve basic crew understanding and confidence regarding aircraft handling qualities, options and procedures as these relate to design characteristics and limitations. This training should include the following:
Recovery from unusual attitudes;
Handling qualities and procedures during recovery from an upset condition (e.g., wake vortex encounter);
Operation of aircraft in icing environments including super cooled liquid droplet (SLD) events;
Low Energy Awareness Training;
High Altitude Stall Recovery;
Engine Failure/Malfunction Recognition Training;
Flight Deck Admission Control Training.
Special Event Training Specific to CL-600-2B19
Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-15R1 applicable to the CL-600-2B19 requires specific pilot training in cold weather and icing conditions. (Ref. Appendix C). The applicable AFM Temporary Revision (TRs) RJ/155-5 refers to this training as Bombardier Aerospace Enhancement to Takeoff Operational Safety Margins Training. This training is available on line at http://batraining.com under the heading of Take-off Safety Information.
The Checking requirements are the successful completion of the associated test to the required pass mark. Currency requirements are that the training will be successfully completed within the preceding 12 calendar months for take-off procedures, ground icing conditions and cold weather operations as provided in the applicable TR.
Due to continued industry efforts to reduce exposure to CFIT accidents, special emphasis on this topic is appropriate. Emphasis on altitude awareness, EGPWS warnings, situational awareness and crew co-ordination as appropriate.
Recurrent training must include appropriate training in accordance with the Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS). Recurrent training must also be in accordance with the initial differences training specified by MDR and ODR tables unless otherwise approved by the POI. ODR table provisions identify differences in manoeuvres or procedures between variants, which must be addressed in the operator’s recurrent program.
All pilot checking specified in Subpart 705 of the CARs applies to initial qualification on the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15. Subsequent PPCs should alternate between the CL-600-2B19 and the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15. However, line checks conducted in one variant should satisfy the requirements for all variants. If the operator’s use related to line operations (e.g. route structure, area of operation, ETOPS) of one variant is significantly different from another variant, then separate line checks should be conducted.
In addition the following conditions apply:
When HGS use is approved, checking must include a suitable demonstration of HGS use for modes and phases of flight authorized. Checking standards for HGS are equivalent to those for non-HGS operations. Periodic assessment of non-HGS skills should also be demonstrated. Therefore a check pilot/inspector may request that authorized manoeuvres be performed without use of HGS (e.g. if manual CAT II F/D operations are authorized, the pilot being checked may be requested to perform the manoeuvre without HGS).
Air operators with flight crews operating the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 in mixed fleet operations may alternate PPCs provided the currency requirements detailed below are maintained. The CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 should be considered as one variant for the purposes of alternating PPCs.
Currency is considered to be common for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15. Separate tracking of currency for the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 is not necessary or applicable.
The OEB was asked by Bombardier to approve their initial training programs for all the variants of the CL-65. The results of the OEB assessment of those programs are provided below.
The initial pilot training courses provided by the BATC for the CL-65 series aircraft satisfy the required standards for the initial training (Level C) of Canadian pilots to operate the aircraft in commercial service in Canada. The CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 are considered to be functionally equivalent and, as a result, can be all addressed within the same initial course.
Differences training is necessary for qualification in each variant, as shown in the MDR, unless an initial or transition program is completed for each variant. Based on the experience of pilot candidates who received this training as part of the OEB, the course provided by BATC meets all the requirements of Subpart 705 of the CARs for the training of Canadian pilots who obtained their CL-65 type rating on the CL-600-2B19 to operate the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 in a commercial service.
CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 to CL-600-2B19 Differences Training
Differences training is necessary for qualification in each variant, as shown in the MDR, unless an initial or transition program is completed for each variant. Based on the experience of pilot candidates who received this training as part of the OEB, the course provided by BATC meets all the requirements of Subpart 705 of the CARs, and is suitable for training Canadian pilots who obtained their CL-65 series type rating on the CL‑600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2D15 to operate the CL-600-2B19 in a commercial service.
Differences training is necessary for qualification in each variant, as shown in the MDR, unless an initial or transition program is completed for each variant. Based on the experience of pilot candidates who received this training as part of the OEB, the course provided by BATC meets all the requirements of Subpart 705 of the CARs, and is approved for training Canadian pilots who obtained their CL-65 series type rating on the CL‑600-2D15 or CL-600-2D24 to operate the CL-600-2C10 in a commercial service.
Differences training is necessary for qualification in each variant, as shown in the MDR, unless an initial or transition program is completed for each variant. Based on the experience of pilot candidates who received this training as part of the OEB, the differences course provided by BATC meets all the requirements of Subpart 705 of the CARs, and is suitable for training Canadian pilots who obtained their CL-65 series type rating on the CL-600-2C10 to operate the CL-600-2D24, or CL-600-2D15 in a commercial service.
BA submitted a Regulatory Compliance Checklist for the production standard CL-600-2D24 aircraft showing compliance with the equipment requirements of Subparts 604, 605, 704 and 705 of the CARs. An inspection of a production aircraft was completed in Montreal on January 6, 2003. The results of that inspection are attached as Appendix 2.
Since the CL-600-2D15 is actually a 75-seat derivative of the same aircraft originally inspected, the 2005 OEB team determined that appended checklist remained accurate for use with the latest variant.
POIs should consult the OEB Team Leader when operators propose means of compliance other than those specified in this report. The Chief of Certification & Operational Standards, Commercial and Business Aviation is the approving authority for proposed alternate means of compliance. If an alternate means of compliance is sought, operators will be required to submit a proposed alternate means for approval that provides an equivalent level of safety to the provisions of the CARs and this OEB Report. Analysis, demonstrations, proof of concept testing, differences documentation, and/or other evidence may be required.
In the event that alternate compliance is sought, training program hour reductions, simulator approvals, and device approvals may be significantly limited and reporting requirements may be increased to ensure an equivalent level of training, checking, and currency. TC will generally not consider relief through alternate compliance means unless sufficient lead-time has been planned by an operator to allow for any necessary testing and evaluation.
The OEB conducted a number of flights on CRJ-900 C-GRNH as a representative production model aircraft. The purpose of the flights was to assess the operational suitability of the CL-600-2D24. The OEB determined that the CL-600-2B19, CL-6002C10 and CL-600-2D24 are operationally suitable for entry into Canadian commercial service operating under Subparts 604, s704 and s705 of the CARs.
Using the same criteria, the 2005 OEB determined that the enhanced CL-600-2D24 and the newly certified CL‑600-2D15 were operationally suitable for entry into Canadian commercial service operating under Subparts 604, 704 and 705 of the CARs.
Commercial Air Services: The OEB found that the CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 fall under the Part VII, subpart 5 (705) of the CARs, due to a MCTOW of more than 8 618 kg (19,000 pounds) and a Canadian type certificate authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers. However, the aircraft may be authorized by the Minister to be operated under Part VII, subpart 4 (704) of the CARs - Commuter Operations for passenger configurations of 19 or fewer passengers. This authority shall be accompanied by a requirement to have a flight attendant on all passenger carrying flights for the following reasons:
Nature of the interior - The interior of the representative aircraft presented by the manufacturer has the forward area immediately behind the cockpit occupied with passenger service area, main entrance, and forward lavatory between the main passenger cabin bulkhead and the cockpit bulkhead. This arrangement prevents the supervisory control over passengers during flight by visual and aural means by the flight crew.
Length of the aircraft - The length of the main cabin precludes visual supervision of passengers from a cockpit seat. This would be compounded in those configurations where an additional bulkhead forming passenger sleeping compartments and/or office areas is installed in an executive configuration.
Private Passenger Transportation: For Subpart 604 of the CARs Private Operators, the requirement for a flight attendant starts at thirteen passengers in those aeroplanes that cannot provide for flight crew supervision of the passengers by visual and aural means. If the flight crew have the ability to supervise passengers a flight attendant is required at 20 passengers. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2D15 flights under Subpart 604 of the CARs shall carry a flight attendant for thirteen passengers or more. If an operator feels that their particular aircraft interior configuration is such that a flight attendant should not be a requirement, an actual aeroplane evaluation shall be requested from the Chief of Certification & Operational Standards (AARXB) at TC Headquarters, Commercial & Business Aviation.
A few general comments, minor in nature, with respect to courseware and documents were raised by the evaluation team and will be dealt with under separate cover.
The documents provided by BA to support this OEB and which have been used in the preparation of this report will be kept on file by the Programme Manager, Flight Technical, Transport Canada Safety and Security, Commercial & Business Aviation Operational Standards, Ottawa ON, K1A 0N8.
The OEB archive contains the following documents:
PRM Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2C10 / CL-600-2D15 / CL-600-2D24
QRH Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2C10
QRH Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2D15
QRH Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2D24
PRM Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2B19
QRH Volumes 1 and 2 CL-600-2B19
OEB Proficiency Check Scripts
CL-600-2D24 Proficiency Check forms Phase 1
Baseline Proficiency Check forms Phase 2
T2 Check Forms
CL-600-2D24 Proficiency Check forms Phase 2
CL-600-2D24 Proficiency Check forms Phase 3
END OF REPORT
- Date modified: