AIRBUS INDUSTRIE

Airbus Resident Customer Support Managers are based at their operators premises. With over 25 nationalities
represented, they can be relied upon to understand your countrys culture, ensuring theyve a close relationship
based on mutual trust. Many have an airline background, which means theyre at home with
your operation and aircraft. In fact, whatever you require, you can be sure our Resident Customer Support
Managers are all ears. Airbus Customer Services. Dedicated to meet your requirements.
ht t p://www. ai rbus.com
WEVE A REVOLUTI ONARY METHOD OF UNDERSTANDI NG YOUR AI RLI NES REQUI REMENTS. WE LI STEN.
AIRBUS
SETTI NG THE STANDARDS
Cover / backcover 17/09/1998 11:06 Page 1
AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1998
Publisher: Airbus Industrie Customer Services, 1 rond-point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France
Editor: Denis Dempster, Product Marketing
Telephone +33 (0)5 61 93 39 29, Telex AIRBU 530526F, Telefax +33 (0)5 61 93 27 67
Graphic design: Agns Lacombe, Customer Services Marketing
Photo-engraving: Passion Graphic, 60 boulevard Dodat de Sverac, 31027 Toulouse Cedex, France
Printer: Escourbiac, 5 avenue Marcel Dassault, 31502 Toulouse Cedex, France
This issue of FAST has been printed on paper produced without using chlorine, to reduce waste
and help to conserve natural resources. 'Every little helps'.
FAST may be read on Internet http://www.airbus.com
The articles herein may be reprinted without permission except where copyright source is indicated, but with
acknowledgement to Airbus Industrie. Articles which may be subject to ongoing review must have their accuracy
verified prior to reprint. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the assumptions shown
and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, the Company will be
pleased to explain the basis thereof.
AIRBUS
TECHNICAL
DIGEST
NUMBER 23
OCTOBER 1998
TRAINING PHILOSOPHY FOR PROTECTED AIRCRAFT
IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
CAPTAIN ETIENNE TARNOWSKI
2
2
COMMON, RELIABLE AND PUNCTUAL...
THE PATH TO LOWER SPARES COSTS
OLYMPIOS PANAYIOTOU AND MARTIN WOODS
13
13
AVOIDING ELEVATOR VIBRATION - A319, A320, A321
SONIA BOURCHARDIE
19
19
COMBINING ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND
WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTION ON AIRBUS AIRCRAFT
FRANCOIS POVEDA
12
12
10
CUSTOMER SERVICES CONFERENCES
10
24
SERVICE BULLETIN REPORTING
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH REFLECT
THE CONFIGURATION OF YOUR AIRCRAFT
CLAIRE HAREL
24
31
RESIDENT CUSTOMER SUPPORT REPRESENTATION
31
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - PART II
32
32
FAST / NUMBER 23 1
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:18 Page 1
FAST / NUMBER 23 3
ince 1985, Airbus Industrie has
designed a fly-by-wire aircraft
family; the fly-by-wire control
laws include protections that
have been provided as an assistance to
the pilot in emergency situations.
Crews are being trained to face emer-
gency situations such as evasive ma-
noeuvres to avoid Controlled Flight
Into Terrain (CFIT). The Flight Safety
Foundation (FSF) has sponsored a large
programme regarding how to train for
CFIT escape manoeuvres, and Airbus
Industrie has released a training manual
on this issue to Airbus operators.This
article aims to inform the aviation com-
munity on the safety benefits of those
protections, and on the ways they are
implemented in the training philosophy,
which are:
Explain the protection philosophy
Explain and demonstrate the achiev-
able performance
Provide alertness training for pilots
by flying realistic scenarios in full
flight simulators (FFS).
THE PROTECTION
PHILOSOPHY
Most late-technology aircraft carry the
most up-to-date systems to assist the pi-
lots in achieving their tasks, without
changing the nature of the tasks them-
selves. The protections built in the fly-
by-wire system is one of them. These
systems have been designed to be a
COMPLEMENT for the pilots, after a
thorough analysis of pilots strengths
and weaknesses; basically they have
been added wherever they could do bet-
ter than man, to compensate for those
weaknesses.
These systems are merely operators
which work repetitively, accurately and
consistently, according to built-in logic,
but with no intuition, no discernment,
no decision capacity. However pilots
need an understanding of those systems
to operate them properly. As a conse-
quence, if the main goal of training is to
make flying more instinctive, more nat-
ural, the pilots have to be taught the
whys of those systems. Then the pilots
understand the process and become nat-
urally part of it and will apply the asso-
ciated procedures instinctively and nat-
urally. This statement applies to the
protections that are implemented on es-
sential systems of the aircraft.
When a pilot faces an unexpected
event, he normally has to react within
seconds to save the aircraft. He is the
one ultimately responsible for the
safety of the flight. Dangerous unex-
pected situations are often linked to
non-linear, discontinuous phenomena
that appear at the border of the flight
envelope. In such circumstances the pi-
lot does not normally have any relevant
past experience, to give him a sponta-
neously correct response. Therefore, the
design of the main aircraft systems
must aim at giving full authority to the
pilot to consistently achieve the maxi-
mum possible aircraft performance in
such extreme circumstances, with an
easy, instinctive and immediate proce-
dure, while minimising the risks of
over-controlling or over-stressing the
aircraft.
This design philosophy has been ap-
plied homogeneously throughout the
essential systems of the Airbus fly-by-
wire aircraft.
Protection in the brakes
A pilot may apply full pedals down, at
take-off or landing when required (re-
jected take-off or landing a heavy air-
craft on a short runway...), because the
braking system is protected by the anti-
skid system which releases the brake
pressure whenever a skidding condition
is detected.
The braking system with anti-skid al-
lows the pilot to get the best braking
performance with an instinctive action
on the pedals; by no means does it limit
the authority of the pilot.
Protection in the engines
The engine acceleration characteristics,
on a high by-pass ratio engine, seems to
be very sluggish to a pilot who needs
full Take-off and Go Around (TOGA)
thrust out of idle, in order to recover
from a dangerous situation. As shown
in the graph (Figure 1), there is hardly
any thrust increase in the first 3 to 4
seconds; then the thrust increases very
rapidly to its maximum. This character-
Time (sec)
100
50
0
Maximum thrust (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 1
TYPICAL ENGINE ACCELERATION RESPONSE
S
FAST / NUMBER 23 2
The civil aviation
environment has evolved
considerably in the past
decade. The passenger and
cargo demands have
increased enormously,
leading to a far larger
number of aircraft in
service. Also flight safety
criteria have become more
and more stringent.
Furthermore, the media and
the expectations of the
public, in terms of safety,
have set even greater
pressure on the civil
aviation industry.
Although the accident rates
have dropped considerably,
due to the ever-increasing
number of airliners in
service, accidents do not
seem to be much less
frequent, and it is this
factor which may
influence public
opinion.
Consequently,
the civil aviation
industry has to fight
untiringly against the
main causes of
accidents which occur
mostly in approach
phases: controlled flight
into terrain, and to a lesser
extent, windshear.
TRAI NI N G
PHILOSOPHY FOR
PROTECTED AIRCRAFT I N EMERGENCY
SITUATI O NS
by Captain Etienne Tarnowski
Vice President Engineering Operations, Airbus Industrie
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:30 Page 2
FAST / NUMBER 23 5
maintain speed at, or above VLS.
Should the aircraft energy drop be-
low a certain threshold, a low energy
aural warning is triggered calling
SPEED - SPEED. The aircraft energy
is a function of speed, acceleration and
flight path angle, and the aural warning
comes typically below VLS.
Should the aircraft angle of attack
reach the threshold of Alpha Floor the
ATHR sets TOGA thrust automatically.
The resulting procedures are shown
in the table on the right.
Due to this protection function,
which allows the pilot to apply full
back stick immediately, the escape pro-
cedures on protected aircraft are
straight-forward, instinctive and nat-
ural. They do not require exceptional
skills or flying techniques, which are
far more difficult to achieve when the
pilot is under pressure, or subject to
heavy stress when facing emergency
situation.
The optimum escape procedures on
non-protected aircraft are most difficult
to achieve! The pilot has to try to
achieve a pitch rate of 3/sec, and fly at
the stick shaker angle of attack, be-
cause it is the best for the escape! This
is exactly the goal achieved by the fly-
by-wire protections.
ACHIEVABLE
PERFORMANCE
In case of an emergency on approach
(CFIT, windshear...) what matters to
the pilot is the overall performance he
is able to get from the aircraft (airframe
& engines) during a recovery manoeu-
vre. He must always have in mind the
capability of the aircraft, so as to be
able to always fly ahead of the aircraft.
This is the only way for him to readily
react to any emergency warning.
For the pilot, the overall performance
of the aircraft is materialised with the
altitude versus distance profile the air-
craft is able to fly in a recovery ma-
noeuvre. This profile is essentially a
function of two paramount parameters:
The engine thrust spool-up character-
istic, which is similar on all FADEC
controlled high by-pass ratio engines,
since ALL engine manufacturers have
implemented an anti-surge protection.
The aircrafts response to the pilots
inputs on the side-stick or on the yoke;
this response depends significantly on
the pilots flying technique, on how ag-
gressively he acts.
The aircrafts response will therefore
be very tightly linked to whether the
aircraft is protected or not:
If the aircraft is protected the pilot
may apply full back stick immediately
whenever an emergency is detected.
The flying technique is simple and most
instinctive; it allows the pilot to rapidly
trade speed for altitude in minimum
distance, and then to climb at maximum
AOA properly stabilised.
If the aircraft is not protected the pi-
lot has to act on the yoke cautiously,
not too aggressively, so as not to get
into the stall, in other words to reach,
but not over-shoot, the stick shaker an-
gle of attack and try to stay there. This
requires a lot of skill and a lot of con-
centration, in a very stressful situation.
The observed result is invariably AOA
oscillations around the stick shaker set-
ting, with usually an initial significant
overshoot. As a consequence, the over-
all performance is severely penalised.
In order for the pilot to really feel
those characteristics, the training ses-
sions must include:
an explanation and a description of
the characteristics of the altitude versus
distance profile, on both types of con-
figuration (protected and not protected);
a demonstration of the aircraft/engine
behaviour and of the resulting perfor-
mance, by specific manoeuvres on the
Full Flight Simulator.
This will make pilots fully aware of
the real capabilities of the aircraft, and
thus will comfort their confidence in
the recommended escape procedure.
Altitude versus distance
profile during a recovery
The flight trajectories achieved on all
protected aircraft have the same charac-
teristics since, on a short-term basis,
they are a function of aircraft dynamics
and engine response, which are similar
for all these types of aircraft. On a
longer-term basis, once stabilised, they
depend upon the thrust-to-weight ratios.
The flight trajectories achieved on all
non protected aircraft also have similar
characteristics; however, they are sig-
nificantly penalised by the excessive
difficulty to properly achieve the ma-
noeuvre, and to stabilise the stick
ESCAPE PROCEDURES COMPARISON
Non protected aircraft Airbus protected aircraft
Apply TOGA thrust Apply TOGA thrust
Autopilot disconnect -
Rotate with pitch rate 3/sec -
Pitch initially 20 up Pull full back stick
Respect stick shaker -
Retract speed brakes Check speed brakes retracted
Maintain wings level Maintain wings level
FAST / NUMBER 23 4
istic is common to all turbofan engines
with high by-pass ratio. High by-pass
ratio implies:
High inertia, in particular in the low
pressure assembly because of the size
of the fan and turbine discs;
Only a fraction of the airflow gets
into the combustion chamber to pro-
duce energy in the combustion process.
Today, all engine manufacturers have
programmed an engine acceleration
schedule and a bleed bias system in
the Full Authority Digital Engine
Control (FADEC), in order to protect
the engines against stall. This protec-
tion allows the pilot to get the best pos-
sible thrust increase rate, consistently
and repetitively, by pushing thrust
levers full forward instinctively and
rapidly, while minimising the risks of
engine stall and without limiting what-
soever the authority of the pilot.
Fly-by-wire protection
in the flight controls
Fly-by-wire control systems in Airbus
fly-by-wire aircraft protect the aircraft
against a stall. This protection allows
the pilot to get the maximum available
performance of the aircraft consistently
and repetitively, with a unique, instinc-
tive and immediate action on the side-
stick, while minimising the risks of
over-controlling or over-stressing the
aircraft. (Non protected aircraft provide
warning of the arrival of a stall and
leave the pilot to deal with it as best he
can).
How is this achieved?
By pulling the side-stick fully aft the
pilot gets:
maximum angle of attack giving
maximum lift,
alpha floor* function giving maxi-
mum TOGA thrust,
speed brake auto-retraction giving
reduced drag.
(* see below - angle-of-attack where
maximum thrust is automatically ap-
plied by the autothrust system).
How does this work?
The high Angle of Attack (AOA) pro-
tection is an aerodynamic protection
that prevents the aircraft reaching an
AOA at which is stalls. AOA is also
known as alpha ():
There are three thresholds incorpo-
rated in the protection:
Alpha Prot(ection), which is the
maximum attainable stick-free AOA.
The auto-trim stops there because
there is no valid reason to fly at
such a low speed for a lengthy pe-
riod of time; The speed brakes, if
extended, retract automatically.
Alpha floor, which is the AOA
where engine thrust increases to
TOGA even with autothrust selected
off.
Alpha max, which is the maxi-
mum attainable AOA with the side
stick held fully back.
Suppose that an aircraft decelerates,
stick free, with thrust at idle in level
flight; the fly-by-wire pitch normal law
will keep the aircraft roughly in level
flight and auto-trimmed and when VLS
(minimum normal speed) is reached,
the pilot should take an action to pre-
vent the speed from dropping further. If
the pilot takes no action, the aircraft
will continue to decelerate till it reaches
Alpha Prot.
This is where the angle of attack pro-
tection starts:
If there is still no action from the pi-
lot, the aircraft will sink to maintain the
Prot and associated speed. This is a
major change in the aircraft behaviour.
If, due to the sink rate the pilot then
pulls the side-stick back, he directly or-
ders a higher angle of attack, till he
reaches full back stick where he orders
Max (Figure 2).
In addition to the aerodynamic pro-
tection, three energy features enhance
that function since engine thrust is
needed to maintain the flight path:
When Autothrust (ATHR) is in
SPEED mode, it will adjust the thrust to
the maximum possible, in order to
CL
Airspeed scale
VLS
VLS
Floor
V Floor
Prot
V Prot
Max
V Max
Stall
140
120
Figure 2
HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK PROTECTION
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:38 Page 4
FAST / NUMBER 23 7
The deductive step
Two exercises will demonstrate the ca-
pabilities of the aircraft in recovery ma-
noeuvres, and parameters essential to
the pilots will materialise.
Go around from high vertical speed
(V/S) approach (Figure 5).
Escape manoeuvre (Figure 6).
ALERTNESS TRAINING
The training for escape from emer-
gency situations such as windshear and
CFIT has actually two aspects:
Train the pilot to be alert to the ele-
ments which may create an emergency
situation.,
Train for the escape manoeuvre.
Training the escape
manoeuvre
A GPWS alert comes up with about
15 seconds before potential impact, de-
pending on the terrain configuration.
Therefore, the pilots reaction must be
quick and efficient. Thus, he must be
able to achieve the escape manoeuvre
easily and naturally.
On a protected aircraft, no training
is required to achieve the escape ma-
noeuvre; indeed, the procedure is
straight-forward, is instinctive and does
not require exceptional flying skills.
And, it systematically leads to the best
achievable aircraft performance.
The demonstrations in clear air, as
described in the previous paragraph, are
actually enough to train the manoeuvre
itself, and provide an awareness of the
aircrafts performance.
On a non protected aircraft, a thor-
ough training is required in order to
reach a certain level of flying skill. The
flying technique is not easy to acquire.
Furthermore, it is very dependent upon
the situation! Therefore, a lot of time is
required to try to make this manoeuvre
natural for the pilot and a lot of men-
Go around
initiation altitude
Altitude
loss
Fly SRS
Escape manoeuvre
Initiation altitude
Altitude
loss
Fly full back stick
Landing configuration
VAPP`V/S - 1500 ft/mn
Figure 5
TYPICAL GO-AROUND FROM HIGH VERTICAL SPEED APPROACH - ALTITUDE LOSS
Figure 6
TYPICAL ESCAPE MANOEUVRE - PERFORMANCE
A typical go around with Auto Pilot engaged, out of a high
vertical speed approach (approx. -1500 ft/mn) will be flown.
This will show the crew a typical altitude loss in such a
manoeuvre, as well as the effect of the engine spool-up time.
The influence of the aircraft speed at go around initiation will
be outlined .
A typical escape manoeuvre, out of a high vertical speed
approach (approx. -1500 ft/mn) final approach speed (VAPP),
will be flown in order to outline the resulting performance,
the procedure and the aircraft behaviour (manoeuvrability,
AOA stability...).
Note: The difference in altitude loss between these two procedures is approximately 50ft.
Landing configuration
VAPP V/S -1500 ft/min.
Landing configuration
VAPP V/S -1500 ft/min.
FAST / NUMBER 23 6
160
140
120
160
140
120
160
140
120
160
140
120
VLS
Stick fully aft
-16
V prot
V Floor
V max
Maintains max
with stick full aft
Maintains prot
with stick neutral
Figure 4
ANALYTICAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PROTECTIONS
shaker / stall warning AOA. But they
are also penalised by the procedure it-
self that limits necessarily the initial
manoeuvrability and the pitch target so
as to try to avoid the stall. Figure 3 out-
lines the flight trajectories in both
cases. Since the average time between a
Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) pull-up warning to impact is
about 15 seconds, the safety margin on
a protected aircraft is doubled, and the
reaction time is more than halved. (The
safety margin is 15 seconds, minus the
time which it takes the aircraft to stop
descending and climb back to the alti-
tude at which the pull-up signal was
given, named the Bucket time).
In-flight demonstration
This demonstration is achieved in two
steps:
An analytical step which demon-
strates successive phases of the protec-
tion, and resulting aircraft/engine be-
haviour.
A deductive step where a typical re-
covery manoeuvre shows the flight tra-
jectories to the pilots.
The analytical step (Figure 4)
Slowly decelerate (approximately 0.5
knot/sec.), with ATHR off, in flaps ex-
tended configuration (e.g CONF3),
level flight, stick free:
Reaching VLS minus 5 knots ap-
proximately: Check Speed - Speed
aural message.
Reaching Alpha Prot speed:
Note the significant change in aircraft
behaviour. The aircraft sinks down at
Alpha Prot speed; the auto-trim stops;
to keep level flight the stick feels
heavy.
Acting on the side-stick to maintain
level flight, speed decreases: Alpha
Floor is reached, TOGA is automati-
cally set by ATHR, the aircraft climbs
at Alpha Prot speed, if stick is free.
Pulling full back side-stick : the
Alpha Prot speed is immediately traded
into additional rate of climb till Alpha
Max speed is reached, and Alpha Max
maintained.
ALT
init
Altitude (ft)
Distance (ft)
Duck
under
Protected Non-protected
125
80
500
7 sec 12 sec 15 sec
1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 3
CFIT ESCAPE TRAJECTORIES - PROTECTED VERSUS NON-PROTECTED AIRCRAFT
Maintains prot
with stick neutral
Landing configuration V/S
init
- 1500 ft/min.
MLW Aft CG for protected aircraft
Stick back for level
flight
Stick fully back
Maintains max
with stick fully back
V floor
(SRS is the flight director pitch law used in Go Around)
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:40 Page 6
FAST / NUMBER 23 9
CONCLUSION
The effort to improve flight safety must be a co-ordinated one, from aircraft manufacturers to airline management, including
Air Traffic Control and other agencies. However, the pilot is the last link in the chain. The pilot has to take the right deci-
sion, and the pilot has to take the right action at the right moment, in an emergency situation, so as to save lives. Therefore,
all efforts have to converge, to assist pilots in their decision-making processes, to ensure that they achieve the safest and
most efficient manoeuvre, in an emergency.
Training is obviously one of these essential efforts; and it is most clear that the training to handle emergency situations on
protected aircraft is a rational one, because the protection of fly-by-wire allows concentration on the most important aspect
of the accident prevention, which is pilot alertness. On a protected aircraft, valuable training time is not necessary and is not
lost in teaching and learning how to fly the escape manoeuvre itself.
Sink rate
-3 glide slope Pull up
aircrafts instantaneous position along
its predicted trajectory. However, this
facility shall be used in an environment
where it will create an alert realisti-
cally. Four examples of realistic scenar-
ios are proposed hereunder; these will
create a surprise for the pilots without
degrading the crew confidence in the
GPWS warning.
Note: The same principle applies for
windshear scenarios.
Intermediate approach / Mountain-
ous area / Radar vector (Figure 7).
Non precision approach / Moun-
tainous area / Turbulent (gusty)
weather (Figure 8).
ILS approach / Any area / ATC
brings the aircraft high above the glide
slope (Figure 9).
Initial climb after take-off (or go
around) - Mountainous area
(Figure 10).
Too low terrain
Pull up
Figure 9
PRECISION (ILS) APPROACH - ATC BRINGS AIRCRAFT HIGH ABOVE GLIDE SLOPE - ANY AREA - GPWS MODE1 SINK RATE
Aircraft is beyond the Final
Approach Fix (FAF)at high vertical
speed (= -1500 ft/mn) to capture
glide slope from above.
Figure 10
INITIAL CLIMB AFTER TAKE-OFF (OR GO-AROUND) - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - GPWS MODE 4 / MODE 2
Radar vectoring of the aircraft
during configuration clean up and
acceleration to initial climb speed
FAST / NUMBER 23 8 FAST / NUMBER 23
tal effort is required from the pilot to be
able to achieve this manoeuvre effi-
ciently!
Having an alert
state of mind
This should be the core of the training:
Get pilots to be aware of the situation.
Get pilots to be alert. The earlier an es-
cape manoeuvre is initiated, the greater
are the chances of success! Thus, the
pilots skill and mental capacity have to
be concentrated on consciousness and
awareness of the situation; this state-
ment is obviously true on any aircraft
type.
On a protected aircraft the training
can therefore be fully devoted to pilot
alertness, since all the pilots skill and
mental capacity are available for that
purpose. This is not the case on a non
protected aircraft, where a lot of the pi-
lots mental energy is required for the
achievement of the manoeuvre itself.
In order to train the pilot alertness,
many aspects have to be reviewed:
proper departure/arrival procedures,
proper and concise take-off and ap-
proach briefings,
proper review of major obstacles and
safety altitudes,
proper appreciation of lateral and
vertical situation of the aircraft,
radio communication phraseology,
altimeter setting, task sharing.
Last but not least, in case of emer-
gency, the pilots reaction must be au-
tomatic and immediate, with little room
for argument (unless in clear, cloudless
weather for GPWS warning). This is
also part of the training for pilots alert-
ness. It will be achieved through sev-
eral realistic scenarios flown in the sim-
ulators, spread throughout the training
courses.
For that purpose the simulator must
have the capability to create an elec-
tronic mountain from the instructor
panel, at a selected point ahead of the
Terrain
Pull up
Figure 7
INTERMEDIATE APPROACH - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - RADAR VECTORING - GPWS MODE 2 CLOSURE RATE
Below Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA)
down to Minimum Vectoring Altitude
(MVA): Aircraft at end of descent, still
in clean configuration with a high
speed (say 250 knots).
Terrain
Pull up
Figure 8
NON-PRESICION APPROACH - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - TURBULENT WEATHER - GPWS MODE 2 / MODE 4
Aircraft on final approach, in landing
configuration.
Stabilised approach speed (VAPP).
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:45 Page 8
FAST / NUMBER 23 11
by Sonia Bouchardie, Engineer Flight Control Systems, Customer Services, Airbus Industrie
FAST / NUMBER 23 10
VOIDING ELEVATOR VIBRATION
F
Added to potential aerodynamic excitation, two concomitant conditions causing the
LCO were discovered: servo control bearing backlash and low actuator load.
SOLUTIONS
Two solutions were developed to eliminate these two causes: reduce backlash and
increase hinge moment.
CONCLUSION
The extensive work performed by the Airframe Vibration Task Force led to conclusions for eliminating airframe vibration
which have since been proven in service. The effectiveness of these modifications has been clearly demonstrated through
the positive feedback from the Operators. Therefore as a preventive measure, the incorporation of the Service Bulletins are
highly recommended by Airbus Industrie.
TO REDUCE BACKLASH
Several cases of excessive play within the spherical
bearings of the elevator servo control, due to premature wear
of the Teflon liners, were discovered during inspections
following reports of in flight airframe vibrations.
This condition has now been eliminated thanks to higher
performance NMB bearings, introduced on the elevator
servo-controls through the LUCAS Service Bulletin 31075-
27-17 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1111. This
modification incorporates an additive in the existing liner,
and chromium and super finishing of the inner ball to reduce
the wear rate and friction coefficient. Also the maximum
acceptable value for backlash, measured at the elevator
trailing edge has been reduced from 10mm to 7mm, as
described in the AMM.
TO INCREASE HINGE MOMENT
The Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1114 describes the resetting of the
elevator neutral position to 0.5 degree (aircraft) nose up. Accomplishment of
this modification ensures that the elevators are aerodynamically loaded in an
appropriate manner in order to eliminate vibration, even during flight in
turbulent conditions.
Those changes have no effect on aircraft performance and there is no
change in the handling characteristics of the aircraft, nor is there any penalty
in fuel consumption. This modification has been developed to fit easily into the
maintenance program.
To perform the revised elevator rigging, a new elevator rigging tool,
developed by Airbus Industrie, enables the new neutral position to be
determined. It is highly recommended that this new tool be used, as it allows
more accurate rigging through a simplified procedure. Nevertheless, the
elevators can also be set using the previous tool which was developed
originally to set the elevators to a 0 degree position.
Therefore the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) procedure now
describes how to set the elevators to the 0.5 degree using the original tool or
the new tool.
ADVANTAGES
As a preventive measure, these modifications will:
improve the fleet reliability due to the new elevator servo spherical bearings and revised elevator rigging,
improve passenger and crew comfort by removing the causes of vibration,
reduce maintenance costs.
REFERENCES
TSM Task 05-50-00, In-flight airframe vibration
AMM Task 27-34-00-200-001 Check of the elevator servo controls and hinge bearings for too much play, and condition
Video Tape A320 Family elevator rigging
The Part Numbers are: New Elevator Rigging Tool, 98D27309006000 / Previous Elevator Rigging Tool, 98D27309002000
To order the new Elevator Rigging Tool, please contact AIRBUS INDUSTRIE, Materiel Support Center
Tel: +49 (40) 50 76 0 - Fax: +49 (40) 50 31 68
For further information or to receive a copy of the video tape please contact:
Airbus Industrie Customer Services AI/SE-E52 - Flight Control Systems - Sonia Bouchardie
1, rond-point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 BLAGNAC Cedex FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 5 61 93 22 33 Fax: +33 (0) 5 61 93 44 25
Elevator rigging tool (developed by Airbus Industrie)
ollowing reports of in-flight vibrations on the A320 Family, an intensive flight test
campaign was launched by Airbus Industrie to determine the different sources of elevator
vibrations. They are described in the Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM) Chapter 05-50-00,
and each possible cause is associated with corresponding trouble shooting procedures.
The TSM also provides a recording sheet to help operators establish the cause of vibration.
The main source is the elevator system, which accounts for more than 70% of all
vibrations. Further to the flight test campaign, it was revealed that the phenomenon was in
fact a Limit Cycle Oscillation (LCO) which is a sustained vibration at a fixed frequency
with limited amplitude and having no impact on flight safety.
This article describes how to avoid elevator vibration through the incorporation of a
modification on the spherical bearing of the elevator servo control and a new elevator
setting.
A
A319, A320, A321
fast23 p1 / 11 17/09/1998 9:53 Page 10
13 FAST / NUMBER 23
In everyday life,
the words
common, reliable
and punctual often
conjure up an
image of something
dull, lacklustre, and
non-spectacular.
In the commercial or
engineering world
these terms can mean
the difference between
profit and loss or
success and failure. The
aircraft industry is no
exception to this. In the
aircraft manufacturing
business, the benefits of
being common are
apparent not only through
flight deck commonality
(1)
with cross crew qualification
(CCQ) and common system
architecture and maintenance
philosophy, but also in the
savings which can be made
through common spare parts.
More reliable equipment
naturally means that less spare
parts are required.
The punctuality in the repair of
spare parts will determine how
many spares are required to ensure
the operation of the aircraft while a
part is away for repair. All these
factors, when optimised, yield
considerable cost savings which this
article examines with respect to
aircraft spare parts.
Connon,
ieIialIe and
puncluaI.
|nc pa|n |c |cucr sparcs ccs|s
Three hundred representatives from 33 Airlines, 40 Vendors, Airbus Industrie and
Partners attended the third A330/A340 Technical Symposium which took place 11-15 May
in Kuala Lumpur. The symposium was hosted by Gerard Misrai, Deputy VP Engineering and
Technical Support, and John Grother, Programme Manager for Long Range Aircraft.
During the four day event all major technical items affecting the A330/A340 in service fleet
were reviewed with the operators as well as some areas of more general interest.
In accordance with tradition the event was preceeded by a social evening at which awards were
given to some operators in recognition of exceptional operation of their aircraft.
Cathay Pacific took two awards on their A340 fleet, winning both the dispatch reliability and
highest daily utilization awards.
On the A330 fleet the honours went to LTU for utilization and Aer Lingus for dispatch
reliability.
A special recognition was also give to
Philipines Airlines for the simultaneous entry
into service of three Airbus types (A320,A330
and A340) last year.
The awards winners (left to right) and their hosts,
John GROTHER (left) and Grard MISRAI (right):
Helmut FEIGL, LTU,
Team Leader A330
Mike KINSELLA, AER LINGUS,
Technical Liaison Manager
Michael BOCK, LTU,
Head of Engineering & Planning
Chris GIBBS, CATHAY PACIFIC,
General Manager Engineering
Arnelou BADIOLA, PHILIPINES AIRLINES,
Senior Airframe & System Engineer
FAST / NUMBER 23 12
Every two years since 1980, Airbus Industrie Flight Operations Support has organised a
Performance and Operations Conference. This year will be the 10th, a milestone!
An excellent opportunity for Airbus Operators, Flight Operations directors and managers, chief
pilots, training pilots, operations engineers... and Airbus Industrie Training, Flight Operations and
Flight Test staff to share their experience.
Looking ahead, Documentation Procedures, Operations and environment and new technologies
are part of the programme.
Separate sessions are also planned for fly-by-wire aircraft, conventional aircraft and performance
issues.
Providing an opportunity for the operators, suppliers and Airbus Industrie staff to discuss
technical subjects of common interest and share in-service experience.
A300/A310/A300-300 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM
30 NOVEMBER - 5 DECEMBER 1998 IN BANGKOK
THE 10TH PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONS CONFERENCE
28 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 1998 IN SAN FRANCISCO
A330/A340 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM
11 - 15 MAY 1998 IN KUALA LUMPUR
by
Olympios Panayiotou
Senior Marketing Analyst
and
Martin Woods
Provisioning Manager
Materiel Support Centre
Airbus Industrie
(1) FAST no.14 February 1993, pages 7 - 11
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:10 Page 12
FAST / NUMBER 23 15 FAST / NUMBER 23 14
day, share the highest commonality of
spare parts. In the case of the A320
family this is due to the introduction of
common standards along with the intro-
duction of the A321 and A319, as
shown in figure 3.
We will examine the achievable sav-
ings through commonality by compar-
ing the addition of A319s and a non-
common type to an existing fleet of 10
A320s. The commonality dividend i.e.
the savings made specifically through
the effect of commonality can be seen
in figure 4. This illustrates the effect of
adding the first A319 to a 10 strong
A320 fleet with the full benefits of
commonality, compared to adding one
non-A320 family aircraft. The impact
of commonality is clear. The cost of the
fleet of 10 A320s is $11.63m and the
cost of adding an A319 to the A320
fleet is $0.27m, compared to a cost of
$2.35m of adding a non-common type.
The commonality dividend is therefore
88.5% of the cost of the spares for the
additional aircraft. The overall invest-
ment for 11 aircraft in a combined
Airbus fleet is 85% that of the invest-
ment required for the non-common
fleets.
As the number of added A319 air-
craft increases, the commonality divi-
dend expressed as a percentage
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Additional investment
Commonality dividend A320 investment
Investment (US$m)
10 A320 +
1 A319 combined
+$2,35m
$11.63m
+$0,27m
$11.63m
10 A320 +
1 non common type
Figure 3
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND INTEGRATION
1988
A320 introduction A320 introduction
1994
A321 introduction A321 introduction
A320 / A321
common standard
1996
A319 introduction A319 introduction
A319 / A320 / A321
common standard
Figure 4
COMPARISON OF ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT FOR A319
VS. NON COMMON TYPE
Airframe consumed spares 4%
Airframe spares float 5%
Engine consumed spares 5%
Engine spares float 4%
Fuel 14%
Airframe price 31%
Insurance 2%
Flight Crew 16%
Operational fees 14%
Labour 5%
Acquisition cost (depreciation & finance)
Operating expenses
COMMONALITY
Looking at a typical airlines Direct
Operating Costs (DOC) which may
vary depending on individual airlines
and regions, spares costs are an impor-
tant part (figure 1). Typically, con-
sumed airframe spares represent 29%
of direct maintenance costs (airframe,
and engine consumed parts and labour),
whilst airframe spares acquisition ac-
count for 12.5% of total acquisition
costs. Therefore, a common set of
spares will bring cost savings, which
this article will highlight.
When considering spares commonal-
ity it is useful to first consider the initial
investment required at entry-into-
service of a new aircraft. Airbus
Industrie provides spares recommenda-
tions for operators, which enables them
to select with a certain degree of confi-
dence the optimum spares holding that
they will need for their aircraft opera-
tion (see FAST no. 21 May 1997, pages 25-
29). The major share (figure 2), over
90% of the spares investment by value,
consists of vendor Line Replaceable
Units (LRU). These parts are rotable
spares and repairable spares which are
considered re-usable over the lifetime
of the aircraft.
Of approximately 500 LRUs recom-
mended, the top fifty spare LRUs, in
terms of recommended investment, ac-
count for approximately 70% of that in-
vestment, the top hundred for 80% and
the top two hundred for 95%. Given the
distribution of the investment, an effort
to concentrate on the commonality of a
few spare parts can result in large cost
savings. If an airline chooses to fit the
same equipment across its fleet, e.g.
wheels and brakes, navigation equip-
ment or communication equipment, up
to 95% investment commonality can be
achieved within an Airbus family. This
implies considerable savings when
adding say an A319 or A321 to an ex-
isting fleet of A320s in order to provide
flexibility. Commonality therefore en-
ables economies of scale to be realised
as the fleet grows.
The Airbus idea of family planning
involves maximum parts commonality
and system maintenance commonality.
Naturally, the greatest commonality ex-
ists within family groups;
A300-A310,
A319-A320-A321 and
A330-A340
Commonality between the A320 fam-
ily and A330/A340 family is concen-
trated in the cockpit and systems. The
evolution of Airbus aircraft commonal-
ity means that aircraft in the same fam-
ily, rolling off the production lines to-
Vendor line replaceable units (LRUs)
Vendor breakdown parts (LMPs)
Standard hardware
Cockpit pushbuttons
Tools and GSE
90.3%
4.5%
24.7%
31.7%
37.2%
2.3% 4.1%
1.4%
0.6%
3.2%
by value
by part number count
Figure 1
OPERATING EXPENSES AND ACQUISITION COSTS
Figure 2
SPARES INVESTMENT
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:17 Page 14
function, the FMGC and the FAC. With
the introduction of the A330/A340 the
functions of these LRUs were further
integrated into one unit, the Flight
Management Guidance and Envelope
Computer (FMGEC). The impact on re-
liability and spares provisioning cost of
this leap from non-FBW to FBW air-
craft will be examined.
To examine the impact that systems
integration has had upon spares provi-
sioning it is necessary to consider the
reliability (mean time between un-
scheduled removals - MTBUR) of the
LRUs and, of course, their cost to the
customer. There have been certain
trends which have been evident in the
development of FBW technology:
As can be seen in Figure 9, the
number of units required to fulfill the
Automated Flight System function has
been reduced simplifying maintenance
and spares holding costs.
Generally the reliability (MTBUR)
of the individual LRUs has remained
fairly constant.
Individual LRU prices have in-
creased
The savings attained as a result of
combining these factors must be calcu-
lated by considering the Automated
Flight System as one system. It is there-
fore necessary to calculate the reliabil-
ity of the system as a whole. This we
have done by using the following calcu-
lation where Nu = number of units (see
formula below).
Applying this formula the impact of
FBW integration is readily apparent.
Although the individual LRU MTBURs
have remained relatively steady.
FAST / NUMBER 23 17 FAST / NUMBER 23 16
Non Non
fly-by-wire fly-by-wire
generation generation
aircraft aircraft
11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 49 52 53 55 56 57
Investment (US$m)
ATA chapters
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 8
DISTRIBUTON OF AN A320 INITIAL PROVISIONING RECOMMENDATION BY ATA CHAPTER
A330/340 A330/340
A320 A320
1
(Nu A/MTBUR A + Nu B/MTBUR B + Nu C/MTBUR C....) *
* For spares provisioning purposes the AFS components above are considered
as a series of failure probabilities, since a spare is required as soon as a part
is taken off the aircraft to be tested or repaired regardless of whether the sys-
tem remains functional.
Figure 9
EVOLUTION AND INTEGRATION OF AFS COMPUTERS
FAC FCC
FAC FMGC
FMGEC
1
2
TCC FMC
decreases due to averaging effects
(Figure 5). The reason for this is that
the fleets are so large that the individual
fleet commonalities and economies of
scale have been maximised and the
spares investment curve has flattened
out. In other words, by adding a 51st
A319, the additional spares investment
would be constant at a minimal level.
The commonality dividend and the
averaging effects are evident when we
consider the total investment rather
than just the savings themselves.
Figure 6 illustrates not only these points
but also that the investment required for
a combined fleet differs little from the
investment required for a fleet consist-
ing of only A320s.
In this article we have considered
only the single aisle family using data
for the A320, A319 and a non-common
aircraft of similar size. Similar com-
monality savings are evident with the
A321 and the long-range A340/A330
family as can be seen in the similarity
between Figures 6 and 7.
RELIABILITY
Along with the initial provisioning and
in service savings achievable
through commonality there are the
spares savings that Airbus Industrie
has sought to make through continu-
ous improvement and integration of
aircraft systems.
As we have already seen LRUs are
the most expensive materiel category
within an initial provisioning recom-
mendation. Of the ATA chapters, chap-
ter 22 Auto Flight generates the high-
est spares investment for an Airbus
aircraft representing 14% of the total
investment (Figure 8).
For the A320, ATA chapter 22 con-
sists of only five LRU part numbers re-
flecting the continuous integration of
functions into single boxes. It is there-
fore an appropriate area to focus upon:
within this ATA chapter a significant
improvement has taken place in inte-
grating the computers performing the
Automated Flight System (AFS) func-
tion.
Looking at the Figure 9, the AFS
computers in a typical non fly-by-
wire generation aircraft consists of the
Flight Control Computer (FCC), the
Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC),
the Thrust Control Computer (TCC)
and Flight Management Computer
(FMC) or equivalent. For the A320, the
first full fly-by-wire (FBW) aircraft
the functions of the FCC, TCC and
FMC were integrated into a single
LRU, the Flight Management Guidance
Computer (FMGC) leaving the A320
with two LRUs performing the AFS
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Investment saved (US$m)
Fleet 1
0
+
1
1
0
+
2
1
0
+
3
1
0
+
4
1
0
+
5
1
0
+
6
1
0
+
7
1
0
+
8
1
0
+
9
1
0
+
1
0
1
0
+
1
5
1
0
+
2
0
1
0
+
2
5
1
0
+
3
0
1
0
+
3
5
1
0
+
4
0
1
0
+
4
5
1
0
+
5
0
Percentage investment saved
10
8
6
4
2
0
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
0
+
1
1
0
+
2
1
0
+
3
1
0
+
4
1
0
+
5
1
0
+
6
1
0
+
7
1
0
+
8
1
0
+
9
1
0
+
1
0
1
0
+
1
5
1
0
+
2
0
1
0
+
2
5
1
0
+
3
0
1
0
+
3
5
1
0
+
4
0
1
0
+
4
5
1
0
+
5
0
Investment saved (US$m)
Fleet
Percentage investment saved
Spares investment (US$m)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fleet development
Non common fleet
Combined A320/A319
A320 only
The commonality
dividend
Initial
A320 build up
to 10 a/c fleet
Figure 5
COMMONALITY SAVINGS: ADDING A319S TO A FLEET OF 10 A320S
Figure 7
COMMONALITY SAVINGS: ADDING A330-300S TO A FLEET OF 10 A340S
Figure 6
COMPARISON OF SPARES INVESTMENT
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:19 Page 16
FAST / NUMBER 23 18
CONCLUSION
Airbus Industrie is able to demonstrate that its aircraft families share large commonality in aircraft spares, enabling opera-
tors to reduce their operating costs. This has been achieved through aircraft design with maintenance in mind. Further, the
fly-by-wire technology has lent itself to improving commonality by integrating the Automated Flight System Computers
into a reduced number of LRUs, which share high commonality and reliability within the family groups. So, when it comes
to aircraft spare parts, Airbus Industrie is glad to be called common, reliable and punctual.

However with eleven years of techno-
logical improvements the Auto Flight
system MTBUR has increased quite
dramatically from the non-FBW aircraft
to the latest technology FBW aircraft,
the A320 and A340.
The savings for a recommended
spares investment in dollar terms as a
result of the integration of AFS func-
tions are considerable. The investment
required for the AFS equipment for ten
A340 or A320 being roughly half of
that required for ten non FBW type air-
craft. The advances made in component
integration offsets the increase in price
of the individual LRUs (Figure 10).
The cost effectiveness of the integra-
tion of the AFS can be measured by di-
viding the recommended spares invest-
ment figures by the AFS reliability i.e.
Cost/AFS MTBUR. The results can be
seen in the Figure 11.
The AFS fitted to the A320 is four
times, and the A340 seven times, more
cost effective than the pre-FBW aircraft
and as fleet size increases this effect be-
comes more pronounced.
PUNCTUALITY
The turnaround time for rotable and re-
pairable spares is a combination of the
transit time and the repair processing
time.
The transit time
The transit time is dependent on the
two following factors:
The administrative efficiency of an
airline in realising that a spare has been
removed, shipping the spare part out
and then, when the spare part returns,
placing it back on the shelf.
The speed and efficiency of the
freight forwarder and Customs authori-
ties in importing/exporting and trans-
porting the spare part will have an im-
pact on the transit time. Airbus
Industrie has been working closely with
several major forwarders and logistics
service suppliers to develop an off-the-
shelf transit management programme.
This will offer customers a choice of
forwarder service with defined perfor-
mance levels and terms.
The repair processing time
Airbus Industrie has taken the initiative
with its proprietary parts repair turn-
around time.
Airbus Industrie now guarantees a
maximum of 15 calendar days repair
time for its proprietary parts. This is
backed up by a forward exchange at no
additional cost should the repair time
exceed this guarantee. The operator in
this case is then only invoiced for the
repair charges and not the exchange
fee. This significantly reduces the level
of inventory which needs to be stored
to cover those just-in-case situations
and moves away from the current
industry standard of guaranteeing av-
erage repair times.
Figure 11
AFS COST EFFECTIVENESS
COMPARISON
100
190
Relative MTBUR value
LRU MTBUR
AFS MTBUR
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
FAC FMGC FMGEC FCC FAC TCC FMC Non FBW a/c A320 A340
364
Index value
Non FBW a/c
(10 aircraft fleet)
A320
A340
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Relative
Spares investment
/ AFS MTBUR
19
C O MBININ G ENVIRO NMENT
PROTECTI O N AND
WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTI O N
O N AIRBUS AIRCRAFT
Windshield rain protection provides
the flight crew with a clear vision through
the aircraft windshield when rain is
encountered. The Rainboe rain
repellent fluid, originally used on Airbus
aircraft in addition to the basic windshield
wiper system, has been phased out as
part of the worldwide effort to protect the
Ozone layer. Airbus Industrie has been
actively working on alternative solutions
and is now in a position to provide the
operators with a choice of environmentally
friendly rain repellent fluid or windshield
hydrophobic coating. This combines
maximum windshield rain protection with
safe guards for the environment.
Figure 10
AFS MTBUR COMPARED TO INDIVIDUAL LRU MTBUR
by Franois Poveda
Engineer Fire, Ice and Rain Protection
Customer Services Engineering
Airbus Industrie
FAST / NUMBER 23
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:21 Page 18
21
S S
RAIN RPLNT WIPER
OFF
SLOW
FAST
Figure 3
RAIN REPELLENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
From
hot air
manifold
Test check valve
Purge check valves
Solenoid valves
RAINBOE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID DEACTIVATION
A300 A300-600 A310 A319/A320/A321 A330 A340
MOD 11480 11480 11480 25419 44482 44482
SB A300-30-0044 A300-30-6023 A310-30-2029 A320-30-1032 A330-30-3015 A340-30-4020
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
CFC FREE (LBFS) RAIN REPELLENT FLUID INSTALLATION
A300 A300-600 A310 A319/A320/A321 A330 A340
MOD 11974 11974 11974 26963 45897 45897
SB A300-30-0046 A300-30-6025 A310-30-2032 A320-30-1037 A330-30-3019 A340-30-4022
(2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3)
PPG SURFACE SEAL COATING INSTALLATION
AIRBUS Service Information Letter 30-024 - Issued in July 1997
(1) SB issued in January 1996 (2) SB will be issued by end of 1998 (3) SB issued in July 1998
Applicable Service Bulletins and Modifications references
FAST / NUMBER 23 20
Figure 1
WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM
Figure 2
WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTION COCKPIT CONTROLS
Wiper blade
Wiper arm
Motor converter
SLOW
WIPER
OFF
FAST
RAIN RPLNT RAIN RPLNT WIPER
OFF
SLOW
FAST
- WINDSHIELD WIPERS -
THE BASIC RAIN
PROTECTION SYSTEM
The basic windshield rain protection
system on Airbus aircraft consists of
two electrically operated windshield
wipers, one on the Captains side and
one on the First Officers side
(Figure 1). The wipers can be operated
independently and at low or high speed,
depending on the level of the precipita-
tion (Figure 2). An optional intermittent
function is also available.
All Airbus aircraft are certified for
operation without further windshield
rain protection system.
- RAIN REPELLENT -
AN ADDITIONAL FORM
OF RAIN PROTECTION
All Airbus aircraft are also equipped
with a so-called rain repellent system.
This system allows spraying of a fluid
onto the windshield outer surface when
heavy rain is encountered (see Figure 3
on the following page).
The fluid can be sprayed indepen-
dently on the Captains side and on the
First Officers side. It temporarily mod-
ifies the surface tension on the wind-
shield and, combined with the effect of
the air flow caused by aircraft move-
ment, prevents water droplets from ad-
hering to the windshield outer surface.
- RAINBOE -
RAIN REPELLENT FLUID
PHASE OUT
The Rainboe rain repellent fluid origi-
nally used on Airbus aircraft and on all
other jetliners equipped with a similar
system contains CFC 113. This sub-
stance is a type of freon (Chloro-
fluorocarbon). It is officially listed as
an Ozone depleting substance by the
Montreal Protocol which bans its pro-
duction, import and export since 1st
January 1996.
Since this date and in order to comply
with the international agreements for
the protection of the Ozone layer
(Vienna Convention and Montreal
Protocol), the Rainboe fluid bottle is
no longer installed on delivered aircraft.
Airbus Industrie has nevertheless taken
the option to leave the rain repellent
system installed on the aircraft (electri-
cally deactivated) whilst actively work-
ing with chemical manufacturers on the
development of a new rain repellent
fluid free of CFC.
Service Bulletins for all aircraft types
were issued in January 1996 in order to
allow Rainboe fluid bottle removal
and system deactivation on aircraft in
service (refer to Table below for the
applicable Service Bulletins and
Modifications references).
Rain repellent fluid can assembly
Gauge assembly
Rain repellent blowout
reservoir
Spray nozzles
FAST / NUMBER 23
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:34 Page 20
WINDSHIELD
HYDROPHOBIC COATINGS
- AN ALTERNATIVE -
For those operators wishing to leave the
rain repellent system deactivated,
Airbus Industrie has also formally ap-
proved the use of the PPG Industries
Surface Seal windshield hydrophobic
coating on all Airbus aircraft types
The coating, which can be used with-
out restriction on all types of wind-
shields available on Airbus aircraft,
consists of a treatment applied on the
windshield outer surface in a liquid
form. It dries out to provide rain repel-
lent characteristics similar to those of
the fluid.
The coating does not contain CFC
and is therefore not subjected to the re-
quirements of the Montreal protocol.
The treatment has a limited service
life and needs to be reapplied on a regu-
lar basis.
Airbus Service Information Letter
30-024, issued in July 1997, provides
procurement and material information
related to the coating, as well as recom-
mendations for application and servic-
ing. The content of this SIL is being in-
corporated in the Aircraft Maintenance
Manual, Maintenance Planning docu-
ment, Consumable Materials List and
Tool and Equipment Manual in accor-
dance with the normal revision plan-
ning set for each document and aircraft
type.
Airbus Industrie is closely monitor-
ing the development of other wind-
shield hydrophobic coatings, which will
also be incorporated in the SIL and in
the aircraft documentation if their per-
formance is found to be satisfactory on
Airbus aircraft.
NEW RAIN REPELLENT
FLUID FREE OF CFC
A new rain repellent fluid has been suc-
cessfully developed. The product com-
plies with all the existing regulations
for the protection of the environment.
Laboratory testing has confirmed its
compliance with the existing toxicity
requirements and its compatibility with
the surrounding materials on Airbus
aircraft (windshield, structure, paint).
The excellent rain repellent charac-
teristics of the fluid and its endurance
have been demonstrated by extensive
bench testing and flight testing
(Figure 4). The fluid bottle can be in-
stalled on the aircraft with only minor
modification of the existing rain repel-
lent system.
Airbus Industrie is now preparing the
introduction of the new fluid in produc-
tion. Service Bulletins allow reactiva-
tion of the rain repellent system and in-
stallation of the fluid bottle on aircraft
in service (Figure 5).
The rain repellent fluid bottle is sup-
plied by Le Bozec Filtration and
Systems (LBFS). Refer to the Table on
the preceding page for the applicable
Service Bulletins and Mod references.
FAST / NUMBER 23 23 FAST / NUMBER 23 22
Figure 5
CFC-FREE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID
BOTTLE REPLACEMENT
Figure 4
CFC-FREE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID - ENDURANCE TESTING
HEAVY RAIN
No rain repellent
Rain repellent fluid applied
After 15 seconds
After 2 minutes
Before After
After 10 minutes
EFFECT OF RAIN REPELLENT OR HYDROPHOBIC COATING ON WATER DROPLET / WINDSHIELD CONTACT ANGLE
BEFORE APPLICATION AFTER APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
The commitments of Airbus Industrie on the subject of windshield rain protection were twofold:
To comply with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone depleting substances.
To provide Airbus operators with an alternative form of windshield rain protection, in addition to the basic wiper system.
These commitments are today achieved with the removal of the Rainboe fluid from the Airbus aircraft and with the
availability of two alternative forms of windshield rain protection for use on all Airbus aircraft types:
A new rain repellent fluid,
A windshield hydrophobic coating.
The needs of Airbus operators regarding windshield rain protection vary a lot, depending on local weather conditions,
habits, operational and maintenance procedures.
Airbus Industrie strongly believes that the choice of fluid or coating now available provides the best response to these dif-
ferent needs.
fast23 p12 / 23 17/09/1998 10:37 Page 22
S SERVICE BULLETIN ERVICE BULLETIN
REPORTING REPORTING
7.-/-.-+: s:.-+:.--: /.-/ -./:.-: 7.-/-.-+: s:.-+:.--: /.-/ -./:.-:
:/. ---/.,-+:.-- -/ ,-- +.---+/: :/. ---/.,-+:.-- -/ ,-- +.---+/:
A
A
irbus Industrie endeavours to
supply all Airbus Operators
with Technical Publications
that accurately reflect the configuration
of their aircraft. However, in order to
do this the Operators must supply
Airbus Industrie with the relevant data
on Service Bulletins (SB) selected for,
and implemented on the aircraft in a
timely manner, since the Operators are
the sole source of such information.
SERVICE BULLETIN
REPORTING
During aircraft final assembly, for each
piece of equipment installed in the air-
craft the relevant data is directly incor-
porated into the Technical Publications.
In this case, the Airbus Industrie inter-
nal process is smooth, as the source of
the data is controlled by Airbus
Industrie production system.
Once the aircraft has been in service,
the aircraft is regularly inspected, re-
paired and upgraded by the incorpora-
tion of SBs. The Technical Publications
should evolve with the aircraft, reflect-
ing the changes that the aircraft under-
goes throughout its service life. To en-
able this to happen, Operators should
systematically report SB selection and
accomplishment to Airbus Industrie.
These changes can only be reflected in
the customised manuals as and when
Airbus Industrie is informed of them.
In the event an aircraft is sold or
transferred from one operator to an-
other, Technical Publications which ac-
curately reflect the state of the aircraft
can significantly ease the sale or trans-
fer.
1st step:
SB selection
Upon receipt of an Airbus Industrie SB,
the Operator decides whether the
change is to be accepted and imple-
mented on the fleet. The last page of
each SB (Figure 1) can be used to in-
form Airbus Industrie of this decision:
SB selected for embodiment or SB re-
jected. Airbus Industrie also accepts a
simple fax, letter or other document
from the Operator.
When Airbus Industrie has been in-
formed of the Operators decision, the
records are updated and a target date
for the updating of the manuals is sup-
plied to the Operator. Once the SB has
been selected, data is incorporated in
the affected customised maintenance
manuals:
Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM),
Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM),
Aircraft Schematic Manual (ASM),
Aircraft Wiring Manual (AWM),
Aircraft Wiring List (AWL)
Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC).
Note: All affected non-customised
manuals are systematically revised with
SB data after SB release (no Operator
input is required).
The original information i.e. PRE SB
data, remains valid but, in addition, the
POST SB data is included and dual
configuration is shown, i.e. PRE and
POST service bulletin configuration.
FAST / NUMBER 23 24
Figure 1
SB ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION SHEET
by Claire Harel.
Group Manager Configuration Control
Technical Data and Documentation
Customer Services
Airbus Industrie
FAST / NUMBER 23 25
fast23 p24/32 17/09/1998 10:46 Page 24
Figure 2A shows the PRE solution
and also the PRE and POST SB solu-
tion in the AMM with the addition of
subtask 26-21-00-860-057-A (high-
lighted) in the close-up paragraph.
As long as aircraft 0401 to 0405 are
PRE SB A340-24-4015, the PRE SB
subtask 26-21-00-860-057 applies.
When aircraft are retrofitted, the
maintenance personnel can then find
the POST SB subtask 26-21-00-860-
057-A.
Figure 2B shows the introduction of
new part number 5908974-17 (high-
lighted) in Figure 1 - 1B of the IPC 24-
22-34-1 for aircraft 0401 to 0405.
Pending retrofit on the aircraft, the
Operators maintenance personnel can
consult the PRE SB data while POST
SB data is also available (highlighted).
Note: If the SB is rejected, only the
PRE SB data is reflected.
2nd step:
SB accomplishment
As soon as an SB is installed on a given
aircraft, all that is required of the
Operator is to notify Airbus Industrie.
The pre-printed card that is supplied to-
gether with the kit can be used to in-
form Airbus Industrie of SB accom-
plishment.
Figure 3 shows a completed card.
Here also a simple fax, letter or other
document from the Operator is ac-
cepted.
For each aircraft the SB accomplish-
ment is recorded and a target date for
the updating of the manuals is supplied
to the Operator.
When affected, the operational manu-
als are revised:
Flight Crew Operating Manual
(FCOM),
Quick Reference Handbook (QRH),
Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
Master Minimum Equipment List
(MMEL).
The operational manuals are config-
ured on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis and
every SB accomplishment is reflected.
In addition, any relevant Operations
Engineering Bulletin (OEB) can be re-
moved.
In addition and upon specific request,
a Temporary Revision (TR) (Figure 4)
can be issued when the new pages of
the manual are needed on an urgent ba-
sis.
When the SB is reported as having
been accomplished on the whole fleet,
the PRE SB data is removed from the
customised maintenance manuals:
AMM, TSM, ASM, AWM, AWL and
IPC.
As long as one aircraft remains to be
retrofitted, both PRE and POST SB
configurations are valid and will be re-
flected in the manuals.
FAST / NUMBER 23 27 FAST / NUMBER 23 26
Figure 2
2A - PRE SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED AMM
2B - PRE SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED IPC
Figure 3
SB ACCOMPLISHMENT CARD
Figure 4
TEMPORARY REVISION
PRE & POST SB SOLUTION
PRE & POST SB SOLUTION
fast23 p24/32 17/09/1998 10:50 Page 26
Figure 6 shows the introduction page
of a typical SB list, including the
Operators Engineering Order (EO).
The left column gives the SB incorpo-
ration code: S means split (or dual)
configuration (PRE and POST) while
C indicates the complete (final) con-
figuration (POST).
On the Operators request, it is possi-
ble to show the Operators internal EO
number that is associated with the SB.
FAST / NUMBER 23
Figure 5A highlights the subtask
26-21-00-860-057 to be deleted from
the AMM when SB A340-24-4015 has
been installed on aircraft 0401-0405.
Figure 5B highlights the part number
5908974-16 and associated information
to be deleted from the IPC figure when
SB A340-24-4015 has been installed on
aircraft 0401 to 0405.
This process ensures that the manuals
accurately reflect the technical status of
the fleet with respect to SB application.
The volume of the manuals is also sig-
nificantly reduced after fleet-wide SB
reporting, as obsolete PRE SB data is
removed from the manuals leaving the
relevant POST SB information. This
also results in more user-friendly manu-
als and can help avoid any confusion
when ordering spares and carrying out
maintenance tasks.
An overall view of SB application/
incorporation is available in the SB list
of each maintenance manual.
FAST / NUMBER 23 28
Figure 5
5A - PRE & POST SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED AMM
Figure 6
INTRODUCTION TO A SERVICE BULLETIN LIST
5B - PRE & POST SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED IPC
POST SB SOLUTION
POST SB SOLUTION
29
These two steps of the reporting process are absolutely vital if the
Technical Publications are to be correctly updated. Regular reporting
of SBs that have been selected by the Operators for embodiment is the
first and basic stage and should always be completed by reports of
their accomplishment.
All reports should be sent to Airbus Industrie Customer Services
Directorate Technical Data and Documentation AI/SE-D32
1, rond-point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 Blagnac Cedex France
Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 28 06
fast23 p24/32 17/09/1998 10:52 Page 28
SERVICE BULLETIN
CONFIGURATION REVIEW
An SB configuration review has been
launched and sent to all Airbus
Industrie Operators with specific em-
phasis on the SBs which are classified
as mandatory (linked to an
Airworthiness Directive).
This exercise enables the Operators
to review their SB data and to make
sure that proper information is supplied
to Airbus Industrie. As a result, the
technical level and content of all main-
tenance and operational documentation
should reflect the technical status of the
Operators fleets.
Two SB status lists were sent to all
Airbus Industrie Operators:
The first list containing all SBs
which are effective for the Operators
fleet.
The second list containing only
mandatory SBs.
Figure 7 shows one status list. This
lists are available in printed form and
on diskette. They reflect the current SB
embodiment status based on the data re-
ceived from the Operators. In the case
of leased or second-hand aircraft, they
also include SB status reported from
previous Operators.
Each Operator is requested to provide
Airbus Industrie with the configuration
of their aircraft after cross checking
against the real aircraft status. Then
Airbus Industrie will update their data-
base. Continuous updating will also be
performed from the regular reports
which should be received from each
Operator.
As previously mentioned the SB ac-
ceptance/rejection sheets and accom-
plishment cards can be used for this re-
porting.
It should also be noted that a simple
fax, letter or other document from the
Operator is also accepted.
FAST / NUMBER 23 30
Figure 7
SB STATUS LIST
CONCLUSION
Methods of SB reporting will improve as time goes on, and reduce the Operators workload. On-line access to the
Technical Publications database will become available with SPOC (Single Point of Contact). Another reporting process us-
ing bar codes could also be introduced. A project is under evaluation to record bar codes on the SB kits, Line Replaceable
Units (LRU)s, and Airbus Industrie proprietary parts. This system of recording could not only trace the repair of any spe-
cific piece of equipment but it could also make it possible to easily and safely monitor the changes carried out on each air-
craft.
This could also lead to individual aircraft identity cards. The service Airbus Industrie offers its clients would then be
improved by a more direct source of information and shorter lead-time for incorporation of the relevant information into the
Technical Publications.
Please remember that the data you expect from Airbus Industrie can only be as good as the configuration information
provided by you.
FAST / NUMBER 23 31
In the early days
of civil aviation,
Envi ronment al
p r o t e c t i o n
actually meant
P r o t e c t i o n
f r o m t h e
Environment.
Windshields
were care-
fully pro-
filed to give the
maximum protection, and rain
dispersion was pro-
vided by a
quick wipe of
the pilots
hand.
All that was
needed was a
good scarf and/or
hat, and a pair of
goggles, for the
passengers as well
as the pilot.
Mind you, having a
stiff upper lip proba-
bly made the ele-
ments easier to bear.
Passengers preparing for a flight from Paris to
Brussels in a Caudron in February 1919.
Monsieur Parmelin preparing to fly his
Deperdussin over the Alps in 1914.
A Lady preparing for
flight in her private de Havilland
Moth.
Lieutenant Stainforth having won
the World Speed Record in 1931
in a Supermarine S 6-B.
fast23 p24/32 17/09/1998 10:55 Page 30
32
LOCATION COUNTRY TELEPHONE TELEFAX
ABU DHABI United Arab Emirates 971 (2) 706 7702 971 (2) 757 097
AMMAN Jordan 962 (6) 445 1284 962 (6) 445 1195
ATHENS Greece 30 (1)981 8581 30 (1) 983 2479
BANGKOK Thailand 66 (2) 531 0076 66 (2) 531 1940
BEIJING Peoples Republic of China 86 (10) 6457 2688 86 (10) 6457 0503
BEIRUT Lebanon 961 (1) 601 300 961 (1) 601 200
BERLIN Germany 49 (30) 887 55 245 49 (30) 887 55 248
BOGOTA Columbia 57 (1) 414 8095/96 57 (1) 414 8094
BOMBAY (MUMBAI) India 91 (22) 618 3273 91 (22) 611 3691
91 (22) 611 7147 91 (22) 611 7122
BRUSSELS Belgium 32 2723 4824/25/26 32 2723 4823
BUENOS AIRES Argentina 54 (1) 480 9408 54 (1) 480 9408
CAIRO Egypt 20 (2) 418 3687 20 (2) 418 3707
CARACAS Venezuela 58 315 52 210 58 315 52 210
CHENGDU Peoples Republic of China 86 (28) 570 3851 86 (28) 521 6511
CHICAGO USA (Illinois) 1 (773) 601 4602 1 (773) 601 2406
COLOMBO Sri Lanka 94 73 2197 / 2199 94 (1) 253 893
DAKAR Senegal 221 8201 615 221 8201 148
DAKHA Bangladesh 880 (2) 896129 880 (2) 896130
DELHI India 91 (11) 565 2033 91 (11) 565 2541
DERBY England 44 1332 852 898 44 1332 852 967
DETROIT USA (Michigan) 1 (734) 247 5090 1 (734) 247 5087
DUBAI United Arab Emirates 971 (4) 2085 630/31/32 971 (4) 244806
DUBLIN Ireland 353 (1) 705 2294 353 (1) 705 3803
DULUTH USA (Minnesota) 1 (218) 733 5077 1 (218) 733 5082
DUSSELDORF Germany 49 (211) 9418 687 49 (211) 9418 035
FRANKFURT Germany 49 (69) 696 3947 49 (69) 696 4699
GUANGZHOU Peoples Republic of China 86 (20) 8612 8813 86 (20) 8612 8809
GUAYAQUIL Ecuador 593 (9) 744 734 593 (4) 290 432
HANGHZOU Peoples Republic of China 86 (571) 514 5876 86 (571) 514 5916
HANOI Vietnam 84 (48) 731 613 84 (48) 731 612
HO CHI MINH CITY Vietnam 84 (8) 84 57 602 84 (8) 84 46 419
HONG KONG Peoples Republic of China 852 2747 8449 852 2352 5957
ISTANBUL Turkey 90 (212) 574 0907 90 (212) 573 5521
JAKARTA Indonesia 62 (21) 550 1993 62 (21) 550 1943
JOHANNESBURG South Africa 27 (11) 978 3193 27 (11) 978 3190
KARACHI Pakistan 92 (21) 457 0604 92 (21) 457 0604
KINGSTON Jamaica 1 (876) 924 8057 1 (876) 924 8154
KUALA LUMPUR Malaysia 60 (3) 746 7352 60 (3) 746 2230
KUWAIT Kuwait 965 474 2193 965 434 2567
LARNACA Cyprus 357 (4) 643 181 357 (4) 643 185
LISBON Portugal 351 (1) 840 7032 351 (1) 847 4444
LONDON (LHR) England 44 (181) 751 5431 44 (181) 751 2844
LUTON England 44 (1582) 39 8706 44 (1582) 70 6173
MACAO Macao 853 898 4023 853 898 4024
MADRID Spain 34 (1) 329 1447 34 (1) 329 0708
MALE Maldives 960 317 042 960 318 823
MANCHESTER England 44 (161) 489 3155 44 (161) 489 3240
MANILA Philippines 63 (2) 831 5444 63 (2) 831 0834
FAST / NUMBER 23
RESIDENT
CUSTOMER
SUPPORT
REPRESENTATION
USA / CANADA
Thierry van der Heyden, Vice President Customer Services
Telephone: +1 .703. 834 3484 / Telefax:+1 .703. 834 3464
CHINA
Emmanuel Peraud, Director Customer Services
Telephone: +86 .10. 6456 7720 / Telefax: +86 .10. 6456 76942 /3 /4
REST OF THE WORLD
Mohamed El-Bora, Vice President Customer Support Services Division
Telephone: +33 (0) 5 61 93 35 04 / Telefax:+33 (0) 5 61 93 41 01
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Jean-Paul Gayral, Resident Customer Representation Administration Director
Telephone: +33 (0) 5 61 93 38 79 / Telefax:+33 (0) 5 61 93 49 64
fast23 p24/32 17/09/1998 11:00 Page 32
FAST / NUMBER 23 33
LOCATION COUNTRY TELEPHONE TELEFAX
MAURITIUS Mauritius 230 637 8542 230 637 3882
MEDELIN Columbia 57 (4) 5361027 57 (4) 5361024
MEMPHIS USA (Tennessee) 1 (901) 224 4842 1 (901) 224 5018
MEXICO CITY Mexico 52 (5) 784 3874 52 (5) 785 5195
MELBOURNE Australia 61 (3) 9338 2038 61 (3) 9338 0281
MIAMI USA (Florida) 1 (305) 871 1441 1 (305) 871 2322
MINNEAPOLIS USA (Minnesota) 1 (612) 726 0431 1 (612) 726 0414
MONTREAL Canada 1 (514) 422 6320 1 (514) 422 6310
MOSCOW Russia 7 (095) 753 8061 7 (095) 753 8006
MUSCAT Oman 968 521 286 968 521 286
NAIROBI Kenya 254 (2) 822 763 254 (2) 822 763
NANJING Peoples Republic of China 86 (25) 248 1030/32 86 (25) 248 1031
NEW YORK USA (New York) 1 (718) 656 0700 1 (718) 656 8635
NUREMBERG Germany 49 (911) 365 68219 49 (911) 365 68218
PARIS (CDG) France 33 (0)1 48 62 08 82 / 87 33 (0)1 48 62 08 99
PARIS (ORY) France 33 (0)1 49 78 02 88 33 (0)1 49 78 01 85
PHOENIX USA (Arizona) 1 (602) 693 7445 1 (602) 693 7444
PITTSBURG USA (Pennsylvania) 1 (412) 472 6420 1 (412) 472 1052
PUSAN South Korea 82 (51) 971 6977 82 (51) 971 4106
ROME Italy 39 (6) 6501 0564 39 (6) 652 9077
SANA Yemen 967 (1) 344 439 967 (1) 344 439
SAN FRANCISCO USA (California) 1 (650) 6344375/76/79 1 (650) 6344378
SAN JOSE Costa Rica 506 (4) 417 223 506 (4) 412 228
SAN SALVADOR El Salvador 503 339 9335 503 339 9323
SAO PAULO Brasil 55 (11) 644 54 364 55 (11) 644 54 363
SEOUL South Korea 82 (2) 665 4417 82 (2) 664 3219
SHANGHAI Peoples Republic of China 86 (21) 6268 4122 86 (21) 6268 6671
SHANNON Ireland 353 (1) 705 2084 353 (1) 705 2085
SHENYANG Peoples Republic of China 86 (24) 8939 2699 86 (24) 2272 5177
SHENZHEN Peoples Republic of China 86 755 777 0690 86 755 777 0689
SINGAPORE Singapore 65 (5) 455 027 65 (5) 425 380
TAIPEI Taiwan 886 (2) 25 450 424 886 (2) 25 450 438
886 (3) 38 34 410 886 (3) 38 34 718
TASHKENT Uzbekistan 7 (37) 1254 8552 7 (37) 12 407 049
TEHRAN Iran 98 (21) 603 5647 98 (21) 603 5647
TOKYO (HND) Japan 81 (3) 5756 5081 81 (3) 5756 5084
81 (3) 5756 8770 81 (3) 5756 8772
TORONTO Canada 1 (905) 677 8874 1 (905) 677 1090
TULSA USA (Oklahoma) 1 (918) 292 3227 1 (918) 292 2581
TUNIS Tunisia 216 (1) 750 639 216 (1) 750 855
ULAN BATOR Mongolia 976 (1) 379 930 976 (1) 379 930
VANCOUVER Canada 1 (604) 231 6965 1 (604) 231 6917
VIENNA Austria 43 (1) 7007 3688 43 (1) 7007 3235
WINNIPEG Canada 1 (204) 985 5908 1 (204) 837 2489
XIAN Peoples Republic of China 86 (29) 870 7651 86 (29) 870 7255
YAKUTSK Russia 7 4112 420 165 7 4112 420 165
YEREVAN Armenia 3742 593 415 3742 151 393
ZAGREB Croatia 385 (1) 456 2536 385 (1) 456 2537
ZURICH Switzerland 41 (1) 812 7727 41 (1) 810 2383
Cover / backcover 17/09/1998 11:12 Page 4
AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Airbus Resident Customer Support Managers are based at their operators premises. With over 25 nationalities
represented, they can be relied upon to understand your countrys culture, ensuring theyve a close relationship
based on mutual trust. Many have an airline background, which means theyre at home with
your operation and aircraft. In fact, whatever you require, you can be sure our Resident Customer Support
Managers are all ears. Airbus Customer Services. Dedicated to meet your requirements.
ht t p://www. ai rbus.com
WEVE A REVOLUTI ONARY METHOD OF UNDERSTANDI NG YOUR AI RLI NES REQUI REMENTS. WE LI STEN.
AIRBUS
SETTI NG THE STANDARDS
Cover / backcover 17/09/1998 11:06 Page 1