時(shí)間：2011-08-31 13:49來源：藍(lán)天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點(diǎn)擊：次
|
The Flight Study Group (FSG) has reviewed the comments received as a result of circulation of this NPA to the JSA and Subscribers. It is noted that 6 respondents indicated support for the NPA as written, but 2 respondents suggested changes. The FSG’s responses to these latter comments, and proposal for changes to the NPA to address these comments, are given below. 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 Comments Raised by General Aviation Manufacturers Association. 2.1.1 Comment: Para 2.1. The definition of VREF should have ‘at the 50 foot point’ added to read as follows: ‘VREF means the steady landing approach speed at the 50 foot point for a defined landing configuration. Response: The view that the definition of VREF should be linked to the screen height is accepted. However, as a definition in JAR–1, it should be suitable for general applicability, whereas 50 feet may not be a significant discriminant in all cases; for example, the short landing proposals of FWP 205 which have been used as special conditions for some certifications we use a 35 feet screen height. This generality can be preserved, while addressing the intent of this comment, by referring to ‘the screen height’. On further consideration of the proposal, the FSG now suggest that the existing format of JAR–1 would be better reflected by putting the detailed definition of ‘Reference landing speed’ in JAR 1.1 and a simple explanation of the symbology ‘VREF’ in JAR 1.2. This reflected in the proposed revision to the NPA. 2.1.2 Comment: Para 3.1 GAMA has no argument with the 1g stall as long as the minimum speed remains as a method to determine stall speed. As such, the justification needs to be changed to reflect ‘in addition to’ rather than in ‘in lieu of’ the minimum speed. Response The VS1g proposals were cited in the justification as the subject that had highlighted the desirability of adding formal definitions of VREF and VFTO to JAR–1. They are, however, completely separate subjects and as such it was perhaps inappropriate that the NPA justification might have suggested a link. The GAMA comment is therefore not considered relevant to the present NPA but should be borne in mind as a comment against the VS1g proposals which are to be published in the near future. |
