Gulfstream G150

Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) Report – Gulfstream G150

Gulfstream G150

Table of contents

Revision Record

  1. Executive Summary
  2. Purpose and Applicability
  3. Acronyms
  4. Background
  5. Pilot "Type Rating" Requirements
  6. Master Common Requirements (MCRs)
  7. Master Difference Requirements (MDRs)
  8. Acceptable "Operator Difference Requirements" (ODRs) Tables
  9. Specifications for Training
  10. Specifications for Checking
  11. Specifications for Currency
  12. Aircraft Regulatory Compliance Checklist
  13. Specifications for Devices and Simulators
  14. Miscellaneous
  15. Application of Report
  16. Alternate Means of Compliance to this Report
  17. References

Report prepared and submitted by:

Alain Charlebois and Shawn T.C. McIntyre
Chairpersons, Gulfstream G150
Operational Evaluation Board

Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Commercial & Business Aviation

(Original, MAY 19, 2009)

Roman Marushko
Program Manager, Flight Technical
Transport Canada, Safety and Security
Certification and Operational Standards
Standards Branch
Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N8

Telephone:  (613) 993-4692
Fax: (613) 954-1602
E-Mail: roman.marushko@tc.gc.ca

Arlo Speer
Chief, Certification & Operational Standards
Standards Branch
Transport Canada, Civil Aviation

Revision Record

Revision No. Section Page # Date
Original All All May 19, 2009
       
       
       
       
       
       

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From April 12th to May 3rd, 2009, an operational evaluation was carried out on the Gulfstream G150 aircraft. Two Transport Canada inspectors were appointed as an Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) to complete a validation of the original FAA & JAA operational evaluations.

The Transport Canada Operational Evaluation was conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the JAA/TCCA/FAA Common Procedures Document for Conducting Operational Evaluation Boards (CPD) dated June 10, 2004.

The G150 has initially been developed and certified in Israel as part of the ASTRA family. The co-operation between Gulfstream and IAI was formalized by establishing a new company, Gulfstream Aerospace Limited Partnership (GALP).

The G150 design is a derivative of the model G100 design. The major changes are the new avionics including a Rockwell Collins Pro-Line 21 package and more powerful engines. It was established at the beginning by Gulfstream that the G150 should be a new type rating. The OEB have completed a complete initial training and checking on the G150 type in order to validate the operational evaluation.

The primary purpose of this report is to specify Transport Canada master training, checking and currency requirements applicable to crews operating the Gulfstream G150.

This report will help Canadian commercial air operators in the development of training programs and Principal Operations Inspectors (POI) in the approval of operator training programs pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulations Part VII, Subpart 4. Provisions of this report are effective until amended, superseded or withdrawn by subsequent operational evaluation determinations.

The OEB did not conduct any comparison between any other models of Gulfstream aircraft. The initial training on the Gulfstream G150 is quite intensive and can be compared in complexity to larger high performance aircraft.

Previous experience with EFIS and FMS will benefit pilots undertaking G-150 Training.

2. Purpose and Applicability

The primary purpose of this report is to specify Transport Canada master training, checking and currency requirements applicable to crews operating the Gulfstream G-150 aircraft. This report will help commercial air operators in the development of training programs and POIs in the approval of operator training programs pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulations Part VII, Subpart 4. Provisions of this report are effective until amended, superseded or withdrawn by subsequent operational evaluation determinations.

This report does not address the operation of this aircraft under CAR 604/CBAA POC.

3. Acronyms

Relevant acronyms are defined as follows:

AARTF
Certification and Operational Standards
AFCS
Automatic Flight Control System
AFM
Aircraft Flight Manual
APR
Automatic Performance Reserve
C&BA
Commercial and Business Aviation
CAR
Canadian Aviation Regulation
CASS
Canadian Aviation Regulation Standard
CCP
Cursor Control Panel
CDU
Control Display Unit
CPD
Common Procedures Document for Conducting
Operational Evaluation Boards, 10 June 2004.
EASA
European Aviation Safety Agency
EFIS
Electronic Flight Information system
EICAS
Electronic Indicating and Crew Alerting System
EIS
Engine Indicating System
EVS
Enhanced Vision System
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FAR
Federal Aviation Regulation
FCOM
Flight Crew Operating Manual
FMS
Flight Management System
FSB
Flight Standardization Board
HUD
Head Up Display
ITT
Inter Turbine Temperature
JAA
Joint Aviation Authorities
JOEB
Joint Operational Evaluation Board
LOF
Line-oriented flying
LOFT
Line-oriented flying training
MCR
Master Common Requirements
MCDU
Multifunction Control Display Unit
MFF
Mixed Fleet Flying
MLW
Maximum Landing Weight
MMEL
Master Minimum Equipment List
MTOW
Maximum Takeoff Operating Weight
NSEP
National Simulator Evaluation Program
ODR
Operator Differences Requirements
OE
Operational Evaluation
OEB
Operational Evaluation Board
ORI
Operational Review Item
PNF
Pilot Non-Flying
PF
Pilot Flying
POI
Principal Operations Inspector
PPC
Pilot Proficiency Check
QRH
Quick Reference Handbook
SID
Standard Instrument Departure
SLD
Super cooled liquid droplet
STAR
Standard Terminal Arrival
SVS
Synthetic Vision System
TCCA
Transport Canada Civil Aviation
TCDS
Type Certificate Data Sheet
VNAV
Vertical Navigation

4. Background

Transport Canada (TCCA) Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) A-202 identifies the MODEL GULFSTREAM G150 aircraft, a derivative model of the Gulfstream 100. A detailed description of the new model is provided in part 4 of the TCDS.

The G150 aircraft has two Honeywell TFE731-40AR medium by-pass ratio turbofan engines with thrust rating of 4420 pounds per engine. An Automatic Performance Reserve (APR) system increases the Inter Turbine Temperature (ITT) limits, which, in case of an engine failure, allows normal rated thrust to be maintained up to a higher ambient temperature."  With a MTOW of 26100 lbs (11,838kg), it can be operated at a maximum altitude of 45,000 ft MSL with speed up to Mach 0.85 (Mmo). The aircraft has swept wing with slats, can board up to 9 passengers and has maximum demonstrated crosswind component for a dry runway of 28 Kts.

Engines-driven hydraulic pumps supply hydraulic power for braking and antiskid, for parking brakes, for emergency brakes, for gear operation, for thrust reversers, for nosewheel steering, for airbrakes (ground and air) and to assist the aileron control.

The primary flight controls consist of elevators and rudder which are mechanically operated and the ailerons that are hydraulically boosted with mechanical inputs. Artificial control loading is provided for aileron deflection force at the control wheels. Trim systems are installed for rudder, aileron and stabilizer and operate electrically. The Automatic Flight Control System, a subsystem of the Collins ProLine 21 avionics system, is a fully integrated flight control system. It includes a dual channel three-axis autopilot with automatic pitch trim control. The Canadian TCDS establishes the requirement for Pitch Trim Release Switch on the Co-Pilot Yoke.

The trailing edge flaps are electrically operated and can be selected to 4 positions: 0 – 12 – 20 – 40 degrees. The leading edge slats are operated electrically as well and can be selected in 2 positions, up and down. They extend automatically at high angles of attack.

The Collins ProLine 21 EFIS and avionics package features one primary flight display and one multifunction display and the associated controls on each side of the cockpit.

A flight management system, controlled by MCDU’s on each side, is fully integrated in the operation of the aircraft. It provides Vspeeds and performance computations and builds an operational flight plan from take-off until landing, including overlay non-precision approaches and can calculate a vertical path.

The OEB team received initial ground school instruction at the facilities of Flight Safety International (FSI) at Dallas - Fort Worth, TX. Ground school training was a combination of Instructor led power point presentations and some specific interactive computer based training. Flight training was performed on TC approved flight simulator #584. During the validation of the G150 the OEB team were given the following:

  • Ground training (aircraft systems) with access to computer based training: 64 hrs;
  • System Integration (Flight training device): 4 hrs;
  • Simulator training (TC #584): 14 hrs PF & 14 hrs PNF.

The OEB did not conduct any Operational Suitability Flights, nor submit any Operational Review Items (ORI’s) to Gulfstream because the scope of the TCCA operational evaluation was the validation of the EASA and FAA operational evaluations of the G150.

The OEB is responsible for conducting future evaluations of the G150 aircraft. Re-evaluation may be required if a new derivative is produced or significant hardware or software modifications are made to existing production aircraft. OEB activity may also be required when new systems such as HUD, EVS or SVS are introduced. The Board will then determine the associated impact on training, checking and currency and will amend this report accordingly.

5. Pilot "Type Rating" Requirements

With reference to Canadian Aviation Regulation CAR 401.06 a new pilot's type rating is assigned to the Gulfstream Model G150 and the designated licence endorsement is: G150. The Gulfstream Model G150 was not issued a new type certificate. It was added to the existing Model 1125 Westwind Astra, Astra SPX and Model Gulfstream G100. The G150 is not a variant of any other model and no evaluation for credit was made versus other type.

The Canadian Type Certificate Data Sheet (A-202) for the G150 specifies the needs for One Pilot and One Co-pilot. The issuance of a type rating would require a completion of a Pilot Proficiency Check for Commercial Operations in accordance with CASS 421.40(3)(a)(iii)(A).

6. Master Common Requirements (MCRs)

This section is reserved for possible future variants of the G150 type as required.

7. Master Difference Requirements (MDRs)

This section is reserved for possible future variants of the G150 type as required.

Master Difference Requirements (MDR’s) do not apply to the G150, as this aircraft is considered to be a new type, requiring an individual type-rating for flight crew licensing.

8. Acceptable "Operator Difference Requirements" (ODRs) Tables

This section is reserved for possible future variants of the G150 type as required.

Acceptable Operator Difference Requirements (ODR’s) do not apply.

9. Specifications for Training

In accordance with CAR 421.40 the pilot type rating for the Gulfstream G150 is designated as G150.

Further, due to the design of this aircraft, the type shall not be eligible for PPC grouping in accordance with CAR Parts VI or VII.

Initial, Transition and Upgrade Training:

The FlightSafety International DFW Training Center Gulfstream G150 training program was monitored as part of this evaluation. Minimum training times requirements specified in CASS 724.115(31) Table 1 apply. Commercial operators must ensure that their approved training programs requirements are met when contracting theirs crew member training to another organization.

Recurrent Training:

Annual recurrent training is accomplished in accordance with the operators approved training program that meets the standards of CASS 724.115. Minimum Ground and Flight (Simulator) specified in CASS 724.115(31) Table 2 apply.

Differences Training:

At the time of this report there are no variants to the G150 type. This section is reserved for possible future variants.

Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level D):
  1. Flight Control failures (Slats/Flaps, Trim and Speedbrakes).
  2. Engine malfunctions and DEEC faults.
  3. Primary Flight Display (PFD), Multifunction Display (MFD), and EICAS reversionary modes including emergency operation with standby instrumentation only.
  4. Limitations related to the use of the autopilot and Navigation Modes.
  5. Delayed engine response to full power applications during low energy awareness training.
  6. Traffic Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS) and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) awareness and escape manoeuvres.
  7. Dual generator failure and other systems/electrical malfunctions.
  8. High Altitude Emergency descent procedures.
  9. Crew communications while wearing the oxygen mask using pressure breathing.
  10. Dual generator failure without APU.
  11. Engine shutdown, securing and restarting.

Special Event Training:

  • Special event training is recommended. 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. Examples of this training should include the following:

    • Recovery from unusual attitudes (recurrent training);
    • Steep turns in a clean configuration at 250 knots;
    • Actions, recovery and recommended configurations to cope with a jammed stabilizer in both nose up trim and nose down trim scenarios;
    • 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;
    • Overspeed recovery requiring the use of Stab trim to overcome mach tuck for which the elevator is ineffectual.
  • The OEB also found that early exposure to the automated flight systems and flight management system (FMS) is important, especially for pilots with no previous FMS experience. Establishing early confidence in manually flying the aircraft, converting from manual to automatic (FMS controlled) flight mode and back is equally important due to heavy reliance on automation. In the event of a flight path deviation due to input error or system malfunction, the flight crew must be able to comfortably transition from automatic to manual mode and back in an orderly fashion.
  • Similarly, exposure to the use of VNAV in the terminal environment including SIDs, STARs and LNAV/VNAV approaches is important. Establishing confidence in converting from basic autopilot modes to FMS VNAV controlled flight modes and back is equally important in order to cope with ATC clearance amendments to speed and altitude constraints.
  • GPS standard verification procedures were not included in the Flight Safety training philosophy. Companies must develop appropriate procedures and incorporate them into the approved training program. Company training programs and standard operating procedures must emphasize the philosophy of FMS programming including waypoint selection/verification, and review of flight planning. Ground training provided did not currently meet all requirements 724.115(22)(c)(i) for Area Navigation Systems (general theory subjects) and will require Operator specific training to ensure all elements are satisfied.
  • From the factory, the FMS-6100 installed as specified by Gulfstream on the G150 type does not possess a Temperature Compensation feature.
  • While Flight Safety does cover performance graphs, no emphasis or philosophy training is made to ensure correct chart identification. Performance lessons did not fully address Canadian Aviation Regulation requirements for 704 operations regarding fuel and alternate requirements as well as applying appropriate limiting factor values.
  • The performance information contained in the AFM provides net take-off flight path data for the 1st and 2nd segment climb for a maximum obstacle height of 400 feet above the runway. Gulfstream supplies performance algorithms through commercially available performance software, for situations of obstacle heights greater than 400 feet or for the computation of extended second segment climbs. Use of any such algorithms requires by an air operator requires operational approval.

10. Specifications for Checking

Checking conducted shall be in accordance with CASS 724.108 schedule 1, as required.

11. Specifications for Currency

Currency will be maintained, or re-established, in accordance with CASS 724.115 through the approved Company training program. Currency shall comply with CAR 401.05 and CASS 724.108.

12. Aircraft Regulatory Compliance Checklist

At the time of this report, there was no compliance checklist developed for the G150. Air Operators are cautioned when ordering interior configurations that may not conform to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Operator should consult their POI and PMI when considering interior configuration.

Any Canadian Operator wishing to operate the G150 aircraft will have to demonstrate to Transport Canada that the aircraft fully complies with all applicable CAR 605/704 parts before that aircraft enters service.

POIs may contact the Program Manager of Flight Technical in Certification and Operational Standards, Flight Technical to obtain a sample checklist for guidance in determining an operator’s compliance with all applicable CAR 605/704.

13. Specifications for Devices and Simulators

Device and simulator characteristics are designated in Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP 9685). The acceptability of differences between devices, simulators, and aircraft must be addressed by the POI. Requests for device approval should be made to the POI. The POI may approve those devices for that operator if their characteristics clearly meet the established TC criteria and have been qualified by the National Simulator Evaluation Program (NSEP).

As of the date of this report there are two G150 simulators based in Dallas, Texas at the Flight Safety International Training Centre. Both G150 simulators have Level D certification and are identified respectively as TC ID# 584 and TC ID# 624.

14. Miscellaneous

There is no forward observer's seat on the flight deck or forward passenger seat that complies with CASS 720.16(2)(a.

15. Application of Report

All relevant parts of this report are applicable to operators on the effective date of this report.

16. Alternate Means of Compliance To This Report

It is not the intention of this report to find commonality with other existing types.

The TCCA Program Manager Flight Technical should be consulted by the POI when alternate means of compliance, other than those specified in this report, are proposed. 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 CPD 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. TCCA 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.

17. References

  1. JAA/TCCA/FAA Common Procedures Document for Conducting Operational Evaluation Boards dated 10 June 2004.
  2. European Aviation Safety Agency; Gulfstream G150 JOEB Report dated 20 March 2008, Issue 1.
  3. FAA Flight Standardization Board Report, Gulfstream G150, dated May 22, 2006, Revision Original.
Date modified: