Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:17:46.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pitch trimmer can cause a catastrophic structural failure in an aeroplane, but this is avoidable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

G. B. Gratton Open the ORCID record for G. B. Gratton [Opens in a new window]
G. B. Gratton*
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Beds, UK
*
*[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the potential of a lever-type pitch trimmer to cause an overstress in light and microlight aeroplanes. It concludes that this potential exists and could potentially cause a catastrophic structural failure – with the evidence from one reported fatal accident suggesting that this may have already happened. However, it is shown that this need not be the case, with restricted nose-up control authority, high manoeuvre stability and the use of a trim wheel (as opposed to a lever) with a restrictive rate of control input shown as three methods, most likely in combination, by which this potential can be removed. Suggestions are made for airworthiness standard wording which might be used to ensure adequate safety of future aircraft designs.

Keywords

Flight testPitch trimmerLongitudinal stabilityStructural failureCertificationMicrolightVLAPart 23
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1260 , February 2019 , pp. 174 - 190
Check for updates
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. UK Air Accident Investigations Branch. EV-97 teamEurostar UK (Eurostar), G-GARB 18 September 2016, AAIB Bulletin, 2/2018 G-GARB EW/C2016/09/01.Google Scholar
2. Basildon. Canvey Southend Echo, Southend Pilot Died in Mysterious Plane Crash, dated 11 April 2013 http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10342921.Southend_pilot_died_in_mysterious_plane_crash/ [accessed 22 June 2018].Google Scholar
3. UK Civil Aviation Authority, team Eurostar Microlight, Type Approval Data Sheet No. BM67 issue 5 dated May 2014.Google Scholar
4. UK Civil Aviation Authority, Bulldog 100 series, Type Certificate Data Sheet No BA7 issue 18 July 2002.Google Scholar
5. US Federal Aviation Administration. Grumman AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B and AG-5B, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A16EA Revision 15 dated September 2009.Google Scholar
6. European Aviation Safety Agency, Bölkow BO 209, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. EASA.A.357 Issue 02, 22 June 2015.Google Scholar
7. Darrol Stinton. Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of the Aeroplane, Wiley-Blackwell, May 1998.Google Scholar
8. Gratton, G.B. Use of global positioning system velocity outputs for determining airspeed measurement error, Aeronautical J, 2007, 111, (1120), pp 381–388.Google Scholar
9. Gratton, G. Initial Airworthiness: Determining the Acceptability of New Airborne Systems (2nd ed.), Springer, April 2018.Google Scholar
10. Halstead, J. and Newton, A. Instructional Techniques for the Flight Instructor (3rd ed.), On-Track, 2005.Google Scholar
11. UK Civil Aviation Authority, British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) Section S issue 6, CAP 482 dated 31 May 2013.Google Scholar
12. British Microlight Aircraft Association, X’Air Mk1, Homebuilt Aircraft Data Sheet No. HM1 issue 29 dated 16 Sept 2010.Google Scholar
13. European Aviation Safety Authority, Certification Specifications for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes, CS.23 amendment 3, July 2015.Google Scholar
14. European Aviation Safety Authority. Certification Specifications for Very Light Aeroplanes, CS.VLA, amendment 1, March 2009.Google Scholar