Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft - Royal Aeronautical ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NASA REPORT ON THE TYPOGRAPHY OF FLIGHTDECK DOCUMENTATION by Asaf Degani of the San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose, California. This NASA document was prepared in December 1992 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035-1000, under Contract NCC2-327. List of Design Recommendations (Extract) This section lists together all the design recommendations from the previous sub-sections. These recommendations are not specifications. They only form a baseline, which is based exclusively on the author's subjective interpretation of the data. Each recommendation should be carefully evaluated by the designer based on the type of documentation, usage, criticality, and the target population. The recommendations are listed according to the order of sections in the report (sub-section numbers are given in parenthesis): 1. Sans-serif fonts are usually more legible than fonts with serifs (3.2) 2. Avoid using a font that has characters that are too similar to one another, as this will reduce the legibility of the print. (3.2) 3. Avoid using dot matrix print for critical flight-deck documentation. (3.2) 4. Long chunks of text should be set in lower case. (3.3) 5. If upper case is required, the first letter of the word should be made larger in order to enhance the legibility of the word. (3.3) 6. When specifying font height, or accessing graphs to determine the size of a lower-case character, the distinction between ‘x’ height and overall size should be made. (3.4) 7. As a general recommendation, the ‘x’ height of a font used for important flight-deck documentation should not be below 0.10 inch. (3.4) 8. The recommended height-to-width ratio of a font that is viewed in front of the observer is 5:3. (3.5) 9. The vertical spacing between lines should not be smaller than 25-33% of the overall size of the font. (3.6) 10. The horizontal spacing between characters should be 25% of the overall size and not less than one stroke width. (3.6) 11. Avoid using long strings of text set in italics. (3.8) 12. Use primarily one or two typefaces for emphasis. (3.8) 13. Use black characters over a white background for most cockpit documentation. (3.9) 14. Avoid using white characters over a black background in normal line operations (3.9). However, if this is desired: a.. Use minimum amount of text. b.. Use relatively large type size. c. Use sans-serif to minimise the loss of legibility. 15. Black over white or yellow are recommended for cockpit documentation. (3.10) 16. Avoid using black over dark red, green, and blue. (3.10) 17. Use anti-glare plastic to laminate documents. (4.1) 18. Ensure that the quality of the print and the paper is well above normal standards. Poor quality of the print will effect legibility and readability. (4.3) 19. The designer must assess the age groups of the pilots that will be using the documentation, and take a very conservative approach in assessing information obtained from graphs and data books. (4.4) 60 Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft End of NASA recommendations on typography END OF APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 6 UNITED KINGDOM UK CAA GUIDANCE AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION CIRCULAR AIC 131/1999 (Pink 203) THE NEED TO AVOID DELAY WHEN AN IMMEDIATE LANDING APPEARS NECESSARY 1. Introduction 1.1 When faced with a situation in which it is evident that a flight cannot continue as planned, the commander will first have to decide whether some delay before landing is acceptable or whether the aircraft should be landed — safely — as soon as possible. 1.2 If the circumstances are such that an immediate landing does not appear necessary, the commander will most likely have sufficient time to select an airfield that best suits his requirements and then plan for the descent, approach and landing without experiencing undue pressure. However, if the circumstances are such that an immediate landing does appear necessary, aiming to land at the nearest suitable airfield may bring with it problems that are unlikely to be faced in normal operations. 1.3 One such problem associated with a decision to land as soon as possible might be the prospect of landing overweight. For the crew, this should require little more than completing an appropriate checklist, confirming that the airfield intended to be used is suitable (having regard to the performance of the aircraft in the circumstances encountered), and taking extra care when flying the approach, landing and roll-out. Subsequently, appropriate entries will need to be made in the technical log, and an overweight inspection will have to be carried out by a person authorised to do so. The duration of the flight should not be prolonged unnecessarily by, for example, extending the track to overfly an area where the air traffic service provider would prefer excess fuel to be jettisoned. 2. Circumstances leading to early termination of the flight 2.1 In circumstances such as when there is failure of a navigation system required for entry into prescribed airspace, or when the landing gear retraction sequence is not completed after take-off, an immediate landing will almost certainly not be necessary. At times like these the commander should be able to delay starting the approach while taking action to reduce the all-up mass of the aircraft below that certificated as the maximum for landing. 2.2 However, in circumstances such as when on-board smoke or fires are detected and cannot be contained, or in any situation where the ability of the aircraft to remain in controlled flight is in doubt, it is more likely that the commander will decide that the aircraft should be landed without delay. Although many checklists that have been designed to address such specific emergency situations, as have been foreseen, begin with words like, ‘Land as soon as possible’, there will inevitably be situations that were not envisaged when an immediate landing appears to the commander to be the correct course of action to take. 2.3 In any situation where the flight cannot continue as planned, the commander retains the right to decide which course of action is most appropriate. It is probable that he or she will take into account advice or guidance available from other members of the crew, from checklists and manuals, from operations control and maintenance staff, and from ATC. 3. Actions to be taken when an immediate landing appears necessary 3.1 After having completed essential emergency or abnormal checklists, briefing the crew and preparing the flight deck and cabin areas for landing will be among the foremost priorities. Quite possibly the first request the crew will make of the air traffic service provider will be to adjust the aircraft’s heading towards the airfield where they now wish to land. Flight crew can expect ATC to assist, but only when a formal emergency has been declared and the commander’s intentions have been made known. 3.2 Unless the commander considers that the nature of the emergency is likely to lead to loss of control, he should not attempt to diagnose the cause of the problem (assuming this is not evident) until the aircraft is tracking towards the airfield where he intends to land, and all the essential descent, approach and landing preparations have — as far as possible - been completed. Procedures should not be rushed to the extent that the situation is exacerbated from causes not directly related to the emergency. 3.3 The key factor to be borne in mind when an immediate return to landing appears necessary is to prioritise requirements dictated by the situation and to avoid wasting time carrying out non-essential tasks, aiming to get the aircraft on the ground safely — without delay. 3.4 Full details of procedures that should be used are published in AIC 51/1999 (Pink 192), which deals with VHF RT emergency communications, and AIC 82/1999 (Pink 199), which addresses medical emergencies. This Circular is issued for information, guidance and necessary action. END OF APPENDIX 6 FEBRUARY 2007 61
Page 1 and 2:
Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport
Page 3 and 4:
Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T
Page 7 and 8:
2.0 RISK, PERCEPTION AND PROBABILIT
Page 9 and 10: toward making in-flight fire less l
Page 11 and 12: wires are specified in 14 CFR Part
Page 13 and 14: attracted lint onto the wires. Crac
Page 15 and 16: warnings 94. The 14 CFR Part 25.858
Page 17 and 18: system while accomplishing the comp
Page 19 and 20: APPENDIX 1 Comparison of Airworthin
Page 21 and 22: 23. BLAKE, D. (April 2003). Ground
Page 23 and 24: APPENDIX 3 Do You Smell Smoke? Issu
Page 25 and 26: If it is continuing, crews are comm
Page 27 and 28: 8 Source is visually confirmed to b
Page 29 and 30: Additional Steps for Source Elimina
Page 31 and 32: EXAMPLE OF AN INTEGRATED, NON-ALERT
Page 33 and 34: APPENDIX 4 FLIGHT OPERATIONS GROUP
Page 35 and 36: Note 4a. That “a diversion for an
Page 37 and 38: 5. It is felt that the duration (en
Page 39 and 40: QUICK REFERENCE MANUAL — EMERGENC
Page 41 and 42: (AIRCRAFT TYPE X — Series A/B —
Page 45 and 46: THE SAME CHECKLIST USING ARROWS FOR
Page 49 and 50: THE SAME CHECKLIST USING COLOURED A
Page 53 and 54: APPENDIX 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
Page 55 and 56: 1.6 Print size Is the checklist leg
Page 57 and 58: 2.5 Objective Does the checklist co
Page 59: 3.5 Cross-referencing Where cross-r
Page 63 and 64: GA General Aviation GAPAN Guild of
show all

Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft - Royal Aeronautical ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?