If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

Difference between revisions of "Non Revenue Flights"

From SKYbrary Wiki

 
(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|source_image      = SKYbrary
 
|source_image      = SKYbrary
 
|source_caption    = About SKYbrary
 
|source_caption    = About SKYbrary
|control          = EUROCONTROL
+
|control          = SKYbrary
|control_image    = EUROCONTROL
+
|control_image    = SKYbrary
|control_caption  = EUROCONTROL
+
|control_caption  = About SKYbrary
 
}}
 
}}
 
==Definition==
 
==Definition==
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Flights which are conducted for non revenue purposes such as:
 
Flights which are conducted for non revenue purposes such as:
 
*Ferry and positioning  
 
*Ferry and positioning  
*Acceptance Checks
 
 
*Flying Displays  
 
*Flying Displays  
*Post maintenance function checking
+
*[[Airworthiness Function Flights|Airworthiness Function / Check flights]]
 
*Flight crew base trainimg
 
*Flight crew base trainimg
  
 
== Description==
 
== Description==
  
Non Revenue Flights have often been shown to attract a greater risk of an accident or serious incident than the normal revenue flights which form the main business of any operator or commercial aircraft. In many respects, the causes of increased risk for this type of flight are similar to those which have been associated with a slightly wider sub group of flights - Non Standard Flights.
+
Non Revenue Flights have often been identified as attracting a greater risk of an accident or serious incident than the revenue flights which form the main business of any operator of commercial aircraft. In many respects, the causes of increased risk for this type of flight are similar to those which have been associated with a slightly wider sub group of flights - Non Standard Flights.
  
==Related Articles==
 
  
'''Loss of Control'''
+
==Accident & Incident Reports==
*[[Loss of Control]]
 
*[[Mitigating Risk for Non Standard Flights]]
 
 
 
'''Accident & Incident Reports'''
 
  
 
A selection of accidents and events which have occurred on non-revenue flights:
 
A selection of accidents and events which have occurred on non-revenue flights:
Line 35: Line 29:
 
|limit=5
 
|limit=5
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
==Related Articles==
 +
 +
*[[No Technical Objection (NTO)]]
 +
*[[Maintenance check flight (MCF)]]
 +
*[[Loss of Control]]
 +
*[[Mitigating Risk for Non Standard Flights]]
  
 
==Further Reading==
 
==Further Reading==
  
*[http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/876.pdf UK CAA Check Flight Handbook], Issue 2.2, 22 April 2009.
+
*[http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/876.pdf CAP 1038 - CAA Check Flight Handbook], Issue 2, December 2016.
 +
*[http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3279.pdf EGAST Leaflet (GA11) - Safety at Flying Displays and Events: A Guide For Pilots]
  
[[Category:Glossary]]
+
[[Category:General]]

Latest revision as of 16:12, 23 February 2021

Article Information
Category: General General
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: SKYbrary About SKYbrary

Definition

Flights which are conducted for non revenue purposes such as:

Description

Non Revenue Flights have often been identified as attracting a greater risk of an accident or serious incident than the revenue flights which form the main business of any operator of commercial aircraft. In many respects, the causes of increased risk for this type of flight are similar to those which have been associated with a slightly wider sub group of flights - Non Standard Flights.


Accident & Incident Reports

A selection of accidents and events which have occurred on non-revenue flights:

  • A139 / A30B, Ottawa Canada, 2014 (On 5 June 2014, an AW139 about to depart from its Ottawa home base on a positioning flight exceeded its clearance limit and began to hover taxi towards the main runway as an A300 was about to touch down on it. The TWR controller immediately instructed the helicopter to stop which it did, just clear of the runway. The A300 reached taxi speed just prior to the intersection. The Investigation attributed the error to a combination of distraction and expectancy and noted that the AW139 pilot had not checked actual or imminent runway occupancy prior to passing his clearance limit.)
  • A320 / E145, vicinity Barcelona Spain, 2019 (On 27 September 2019, an Airbus A320 and an Embraer 145 both inbound to Barcelona and being positioned for the same Transition for runway 25R lost separation and received and followed coordinated TCAS RAs after which the closest point of approach was 0.8nm laterally when 200 feet vertically apart. The Investigation found that the experienced controller involved had initially created the conflict whilst seeking to resolve another potential conflict between one of the aircraft and a third aircraft inbound for the same Transition and having identified it had then implemented a faulty recovery plan and executed it improperly.)
  • A320, vicinity Perpignan France, 2008 (On 27 November 2008, the crew of an XL Airways A320 on an airworthiness function flight following aircraft repainting lost control of the aircraft after fail to take the action necessary to recover from a full stall which had resulted from their continued airspeed reduction during a low speed handling test when Stall Protection System (SPS) activation did nor occur at the likely airspeed because two of the three angle of attack sensors were blocked by ice formed by water ingress during preparation for the repainting. This condition rendered angle of attack protection in normal law inoperative.)
  • A320, vicinity Tallinn Estonia, 2018 (On 28 February 2018, an Airbus A320 would not rotate for a touch-and-go takeoff and flightpath control remained temporarily problematic and the aircraft briefly settled back onto the runway with the gear in transit damaging both engines. A very steep climb was then followed by an equally steep descent to 600 feet agl with an EGPWS ‘PULL UP’ activation before recovery. Pitch control was regained using manual stabiliser trim but after both engines stopped during a MAYDAY turnback, an undershoot touchdown followed. The root cause of loss of primary pitch control was determined as unapproved oil in the stabiliser actuator.)
  • A321, vicinity London Gatwick, UK 2020 (On 26 February 2020, after difficulty starting an Airbus A321 left engine for the first flight of the day, the same difficulty recurred on the third flight followed by subsequent en-route abnormalities affecting both engines. After no fault was found during post flight maintenance investigation, similar problems occurred starting the left engine and after takeoff from Gatwick, both engines malfunctioned and a MAYDAY return followed. The continuing Investigation has already found that the engine problems were attributable to fuel system contamination following the addition of 37 times the maximum permitted dosage of Kathon biocide during prior scheduled maintenance work.)

... further results

Related Articles

Further Reading