时间：2011-08-31 13:49来源：蓝天飞行翻译 作者：航空 点击：次
|
2.1.3 Comment: Para 3.2. It is believed that VETO is not widely used or understood. Additionally, GAMA sees no justification from the addition of 1g stall to require the incorporation of VFTO. Response: It is necessary to determine and declare such a speed in establishing compliance with the final take-off climb requirement of JAR 25.121(C). The term VETO is in use and is believed to be generally understood. The introduction of this formal definition into JAR–1 is to ensure such clarity of understanding and to provide a simple term which is likely to be useful in various requirement drafting applications. No change to requirements or additional regulatory burden is involved. The response to the comment on para. 3.1 is equally relevant to the aspect of 1g stall speeds. 2.2 Comments Raised by the Aerospace Industries Association. 2.2.1 Comment: Proposal 2.1(b) – Landing Approach Speed. Delete proposed addition of VREF and its definition. If it is felt necessary to introduce an additional speed notation, for regulatory requirement usage, for the landing steady approach speed to a 50 foot height, the following is suggested. ‘V50 means the steady landing approach speed used for the determination of the manual landing distance from a height of 50 feet for a defined landing configuration. Note: This speed is also sometimes known operationally as VREF.’ JUSTIFICATION It is recognised that VREF has been used operationally to refer to the steady landing approach speed for manual landings in the normal landing configurations. However there are many other places in the Approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) where the word ‘reference’ and the abbreviation ‘ref’ are used in conjunction with weights, speeds, field lengths, lines conditions and configurations other than landing configurations. Response: The proposal to link the definition of VREF to the 50 feet point is similar to GAMA’s first comment and the response to that comment is equally applicable (see 2.1.1 above). However, other aspects of this comment are not accepted. It is noted that AIA is the only respondent (of 8) to have queried the terminology. To say that this speed ‘is sometimes known’ as VREF is a gross understatement of its very widespread use. It is the purpose of formal definitions to avoid confusion. This is believed to be by far the most common interpretation of the term VREF and in the interests of avoiding confusion manufacturers should ensure it is not used for other purposes. |
