Investigation of Factors Affecting Loss of Control of GA Aircraft
Cessna 152 Aerobat · Other Documents
Overview
This document presents an investigation into the factors contributing to loss of control (LoC) in general aviation (GA) aircraft, with a focus on the Cessna 152 and its comparison to the Cessna 150. The study analyzes historical accident data, identifies key design factors, and discusses findings from flight tests. It aims to improve operational safety and inform future GA aircraft designs. The document is intended for aviation safety researchers, pilots, and aircraft designers, providing insights into the operational challenges faced by pilots and the performance characteristics of these aircraft models.
- Cessna 152 has a higher fatality rate per 100,000 hours compared to the Cessna 150.
- The Cessna 152's stall characteristics differ significantly from the Cessna 150, particularly in power-on conditions.
- Flap retraction in the Cessna 152 can create large out-of-trim forces, necessitating careful monitoring.
- The investigation emphasizes the importance of CG location in aircraft handling and safety.
- Future designs should consider 'LoC-proof' features to enhance safety.
Document
Source
Originally published by bura.brunel.ac.uk. Sprinkle hosts a reference copy with an added summary, specifications and searchable full text.
Document details
- Type
- Other Documents
- Year
- 2009
- Pages
- 25
- File size
- 339 KB
- Publisher
- bura.brunel.ac.uk
Common. Rarer than 4% of the aircraft models we track.
Most owners only have the POH. Here's the essential set for the Cessna 152 Aerobat.
- Pilot's Operating Handbook / AFM
- Checklist
- Maintenance Manual
- Parts Catalog (IPC)
- Systems & Wiring
- Service Bulletins
- Type Certificate (TCDS)
Free — save the A152 Aerobat to your watchlist and track it in one place.
More Cessna 152 Aerobatmanuals & documents
See all 24 →- The Student Pilot’s Flight Manual: From First Flight to Pilot CertificateFlight Manual
- CESSNA 152 NORMAL & EMERGENCY PROCEDURES CHECKLISTChecklist
- Cessna C-152 ChecklistChecklist
- CESSNA 152 PROCEDURES MANUALTraining Manual
- Type Acceptance Report TAR 98/08 – Cessna 150/152Maintenance Manual
- Advisory Circular: Part 141 Pilot Schools, Application, Certification, and ComplianceAirworthiness Directives
- AAIB Bulletin 9/2017Service Bulletins
- The Basic Aerobatic Manual: With Spin and Upset Recovery TechniquesPilot's Operating Handbook
- AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN Cessna 150/152 Series Aircraft Horizontal Stabiliser Spar CrackingService Bulletins
- AAIB Bulletin: 9/2010Service Bulletins
- AAIB Bulletin No: 12/2003Service Bulletins
- Aerobatic Training SyllabusAirworthiness Directives
If you fly the Cessna 152 Aerobat, you may also be researching these.
In this document
Background
The document outlines the historical context of GA accidents, highlighting that between 1980 and 2006, a significant percentage of fatal accidents were attributed to loss of control, particularly during low-level operations such as take-off and landing.
Flight Test Programme
The flight test program involved multiple aircraft configurations to assess handling characteristics and performance. The tests aimed to evaluate the impact of center of gravity (CG) variations on aircraft stability and control.
Initial Findings
The investigation revealed that the Cessna 152 exhibited a steeper low-speed loss of control characteristic compared to the Cessna 150. The findings indicated a dependency on CG location and highlighted the need for improved flap retraction procedures to mitigate out-of-trim forces.
Next Steps
The document concludes with recommendations for further research, including simulator studies to assess pilot workload and the development of safety protocols to enhance operational safety in GA aircraft.
Safety notes
- Loss of control is a leading cause of fatal accidents in general aviation, particularly during low-level operations.
- Pilots should be aware of the handling characteristics of the Cessna 152, especially during flap retraction and stall conditions.
Full document text
www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Investigation Investigation of of Factors Affecting Factors Affecting Loss of Control Loss of Control of GA Aircraft of GA Aircraft Mike Bromfield Mike Bromfield & Guy Gratton (M) & Guy Gratton (M) www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Contents • Background • Programme Objectives • Key Design Factors • Flight Test Programme • Initial Findings • Lessons Learned • Next Steps www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Fixed Wing <5,700kg (non-microlight) fatal accident causal factors: 1980 to 2006 (UK) 25% 8% 16% 12% 12% 6% 5% 4% 4%3% 5% Loss of Control VFR Loss of Control IMC Low Flying/Aeros CFIT Forced Landing Mid-air Collision Collision with Grnd Obj Airframe Failure Low Approach Medical/Suicide Undetermined Source: GASCo ? ? www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design • UK, US, Canada & Australia, 300+ GA fatal accidents annually – Likely 100-200 LoC related • Usually LoC at low level – Take-off, landing, go-around, forced landings – “Low, slow and dirty” GA fatal accident causal factors cont’d… www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Programme Objectives •Why does LoC happen? •Why certain types and not others? •How can we improve operational safety? •“LoC-proof” future GA designs. www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design 1984-2006: selected statistics UK Fatalities per 100,000hrs 0.70 0.68 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 ALL SEP Cessna 150 Cessna 152 Source: Ferris R., Data Request 281107, UK CAA Nov. 2007. based on 3,395,056 flying hours www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Spot the difference…? Cessna 150L Cessna 152 www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design What’s the difference? Cessna 150L (‘74) Cessna 150 M (‘75) Cessna 152 (‘80) Powerplant 100 hp Continental 110 hp Lycoming Weight (lbs) 1600 1670 CG Range (in) 31.5~37.5 ( 19.9~30.1 %MAC) 31~36.5 (19.1~28.4 %MAC) Flap Range (deg) 0~40, no detents 0~30, detents @ 0/10/20/30 Flap Activation/Monitoring 2-way switch, LH Door post Indicator Gated 4 position switch, adj. indicator CR Speeds@60% Pwr/2000’/Std T(KTAS) 89 91 VS0 (KCAS) Pwr Off/Aft CG/MTOW: L(30) L(40) 42 41 41 N/A Source: FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet 3A19, FAA, Revision 43, July 25, 2002 Thompson, William D., “The C150/C-152 Story” , Cessna Wings for the World 2nd Ed., 1992 www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Is it CG? - Typical CGs, 2POB + Wf to MTOW 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 CG LOCAT ION (IN CH E S AFT OF D AT U M) C152 Envelope C150 Envelope C152 C150L/M www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Flight Test Programme Phase 1 A/c 2 A/c 3 Baseline CG1 CG2 CG3 CG1 CG1 Mid Mid-Fwd Mid-Aft Mid Mid 1 4 6 - - 53% 62% 2 - - 52% 3 5 7 - - 57% F150M A/c 1 Phase 2* F150L C152 www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Methods & Equipment • TPS basics – Handheld force/displacement/timing – Portable CVR • Headset mounted video for debrief • Appareo FDR +Garmin 296 GPS supplement / positional awareness www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Methods & Equipment Appareo GAU 1000A FDR •16 Channels@ 4Hz •WAAS enabled GPS •3 x Gyroscopes •3 x Accelerometers •Barometric pressure sensor •Solid state compass •AS Flight Analysis software •US$ 2000 J31 Calibration Test Flt www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Methods & Equipment Flight Analysis software •2d/3d playback •Google earth integration •Instrument panel •Own or external GPS •Data export Normal Take-off 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 14:43:53.250 14:43:55.750 14:43:58.250 14:44:00.750 14:44:03.250 14:44:05.750 14:44:08.250 14:44:10.750 14:44:13.250 14:44:15.750 14:44:18.250 14:44:20.750 14:44:23.250 14:44:25.750 14:44:28.250 14:44:30.750 14:44:33.250 14:44:35.750 14:44:38.250 14:44:40.750 14:44:43.250 Time (s) >>> Geopotentail Height (ft) > -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Geopotential Alt. (Feet) Gnd Speed (Knots) Pitch Angle (Degrees) Derived AOA (Degrees) Rotate Unstick 50 ft Start Take-off Roll A/C= Cessna 152 G-BOFL Date: 12/02/09 Gross Wt.= 1650 lbs CG = 34" AoD Flight Evaluator Software FDR Parameters •Time •Lat/Long •True Gnd Speed •Pitch/Roll/Yaw Attitude •Pitch/Roll/Yaw Rate •Geo-potential Altitude •Normal, Lat., Long. Accelerations & Velocities www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design BFSL safety model – the questions Tracking point (optimal condition) Aircraft characteristics Condition error Condition cues Actual condition Planned margin Safety margin Safety cues Boundary (Unsafe Condition) Pilot capacity to respond Pilot response HQ assessment: Point tracking versus boundary avoidance www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Cooper-Harper task selection - Climb out speed control V climbout (67 KIAS) 1.2 V S (53 KIAS) 1.1 V S (49 KIAS) RoC = 0 fpm CH Point Tracking Task (Maintain) CH Boundary Tracking Tasks (Avoid) V climbout V S (44 KIAS) HQR 1~3 HQR 4~6 HQR 7~9 www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Apparent LSS -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 Speed KCAS >>> Stick Force Pull (daN) > Comparison of Apparent LSS (CR), 150M vs 152 C152 F150M F150L www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Apparent LSS -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Show full textShow less
35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 Speed KCAS >>> Stick Force Pull (daN) > Comparison of Apparent LSS (L30), 150M vs 152 C152 F150M F150L www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Apparent LSS -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 Speed KCAS >>> Stick Force Pull (daN) > Comparison of Apparent LSS (CR), 150M vs 152/CG mid-aft C152 F150M F150L C152(mid-aft CG) www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Initial findings • Apparent LSS – Low speed LSS much steeper in C152 than C150 models – C150 / LAND / PLF ÆMCP, near-neutral – Indications of CG dependency – Possible cliff-edge change? • Flaps – Large out of trim forces on retraction – C150 Flap indicator widens scan – Readability issues • Stall – Power on / flapped stall: C150 only attitude warnings, spin risk • Visible pitch attitude changes constantly close to GND www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Mike’s lessons – academic FT • Equipment portability • Limited budget – time is money • Use a ‘calibrated’ TP • Data reduction takes considerable time – plan for this time between sorties – design test cards for data reduction • Don’t rely on the technology • Reporting – brevity vs academic rigour • Be prepared for the unexpected! www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Guy’s lessons – test conduct • “Safe” GA aircraft can still bite, and without inanition – Brief for all emergencies • Flying club environment – Sub-optimal aircraft – At-least 1 in 3 W&CG schedules contain errors • Consider re-weighing – Weather press-on-itis • Check everything • Know and stick to no-go criteria – Keep talking www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Next Steps… More aircraft – Are we looking at the fleet? – Critical cases Simulator work – Cycle pilots through critical cond. – Pilot workload measurement – Find the HQR 3-4, 6-7, 9-10 boundaries – Be willing to crash! S. Camber www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design FDR + CVR: F150L PLF Stall www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design More Information: michael.bromfield@brunel.ac.uk guy.gratton@brunel.ac.uk Questions? www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sed/sedres/cem/bfs School of Engineering and Design Acknowledgements • Dr Mark Young • Thomas Gerald Gray Charitable Trust • General Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) • CAA(UK) & FAA(US) • USAF Academy / Bill Gray