Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:13:37.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The meaning of life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J. W. Bristow
J. W. Bristow*
Affiliation:
Structures and Materials Department, Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority, Gatwick Airport, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

'Life extension’ is the theme of this paper. However, unless there is a clear understanding of what ‘life’ means it is not readily obvious as to the appropriate means to adopt for its ‘extension'. This paper will explore some of the background to the meaning of life and the means being adopted to extend it for fixed wing civil transport aircraft. The focus will be on the safety of airframe structures from a regulatory viewpoint.

A comparative review is made of the evolution, on both sides of the Atlantic, of civil aviation requirements for the fatigue, failsafe and damage tolerance design of structures. Definitions of life are discussed in the context of recent developments of ageing aircraft structural programmes. These definitions are accompanied by an extensive reference list.

Example results are presented from a recent research study which compares the performance of a number of fracture mechanics analysis methods with conventional fatigue endurance approaches to the prediction of lives. The work was carried in a way directly representative of the current aircraft design environment. It was undertaken by three separate aircraft manufacturers and applied to a range of aircraft structural features that were not necessarily originally designed to damage tolerant principles.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1036 , June 2000 , pp. 264 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

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

References

1. Minter, R.G. and Bristow, J.W., Fatigue and Damage Tolerance In Helicopters - A Civil View, NATO-RTO Conference, Corfu, Apr 1999.Google Scholar
2. Bristow, J.W., The Age of the Plane, Presentation to Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, April 1993.Google Scholar
3. CAP 127, Civil Aircraft Accident, HMSO 1955.Google Scholar
4. Hendricks, W.R., pp 142–149 DOT/FAA/CT-89/35, Federal Aviation Administration. Google Scholar
5. Davidson Rev, T. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, W&R Chambers, London, 1901.Google Scholar
6. Geddie, W. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary - Mid Century Version, W&R Chambers, London, 1952.Google Scholar
7. Adams, D. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Pan, London, 1979.Google Scholar
8. Adams, D. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Pan, London, 1980.Google Scholar
9. British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section D, Issue 3, July 1956, Chapter D3-7, para 2.Google Scholar
10. British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section D, Issue 4, March 1959, Chapter D3-1 para 5.Google Scholar
11. Joint Aviation Requirements, JAR 25, para 571, First Issue, January 1974.Google Scholar
12. Civil Aeronautics Board, Airplane Airworthiness Transport Categories, Part 4b-3 para 270, March 1956.Google Scholar
13. Federal Aviation Regulations,FAR 25, para 571, Amendment 45, Octo ber 1973.Google Scholar
14. Joint Aviation Requirements, JAR 25, Change 7, para 571, November 1980.Google Scholar
15. Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR 25, para 571, Amendment 96, March 1998.Google Scholar
16. British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section D, Issue 4, Chapter Dl-l,para 4.Google Scholar
17. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 25-571-1A, March 1986.Google Scholar
18. Joint Aviation Authorities, NPA 25C-292, para 6.2, March 1998.Google Scholar
19. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular, 25-571-1C, May 1998.Google Scholar
20. Boeing of Canada, Maintenance Review Board Report, PSM 1-83-7, App.l.February 1990.Google Scholar
21. Airbus Industrie, A300-600, MPD-GP-001, p 16, February 1984.Google Scholar
22. British Aerospace Regional Aircraft, MPD-146.01, Section 2. page 13, January 1998.Google Scholar
23. Airbus Industrie. A300 Maintenance Programme, p,B2, April 1980.Google Scholar
24. Joint Aviation Authorities, JAR 25, Large Aeroplanes, para 25-571, Change 11, May 1984.Google Scholar
25. Joint Aviation Authorities, JAR 25, Large Aeroplanes, ACJ 25.571(a), para 2.3, Change 7, November 1980.Google Scholar
26. Civil Aviation Authority, Airworthiness Notice 62, Issue 3, March 1989.Google Scholar
27. ESDU International Fatigue-Endurance data 69023, March 1989.Google Scholar
28. Department of Transportation, Fatigue Evaluation of Wing and Associated Structure on Small Airplanes, AFS-120-73-2, Washington, May 1973.Google Scholar
29. Civil Aviation Authority, Airworthiness Notice 89, August 1978.Google Scholar
30. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 91-56, May 1981.Google Scholar
31. ICAO, Airworthiness Technical Manual, Chapter 1, December 1979.Google Scholar
32. Department of Trade, Aircraft Accident Report 11/77, HMSO, 1977.Google Scholar
33. Department of Trade, Aircraft Accident Report 9/78, HMSO, 1978.Google Scholar
34. DGLR, Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Structural Air worthiness of New and Aging Aircraft DGLR-Bericht 93.02, Hamburg, June 1993.Google Scholar
35. ATA, A Report of the AATF on Fatigue Testing and/or Teardown Issues, February 1991.Google Scholar
36. Maxwell, R.D.J. Fail-Safe Philosophy. p.1.1/8, TR73183, Royal Air craft Establishment, Mar 1974.Google Scholar
37. AAWG, Recommendations for Regulatory Action to Prevent Wide spread Fatigue Damage in the Commercial Airplane Fleet, Draft Final Report, February 1999.Google Scholar
38. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 91-56A, January 1998.Google Scholar
39. AAWG, Structural Fatigue Evaluation for Aging Airplanes, October 1993.Google Scholar
40. FAA/JAA Harmonisation Management Team, Draft Tasking Statement from AAWG, Dec 1998.Google Scholar
41. Federal Aviation Administration, Final Report on Damage Tolerance for Commuter Aircraft, A Preliminary Review of Selected Models, Internal communication.Google Scholar
42. CAA, Report 99005 Fatigue and Fracture Analysis of Commuter Air craft Structure - Results of a Round Robin Exercise. To be published.Google Scholar