Bombardier CL605

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY
Bombardier Challenger 604


Revision 0

Dated, 22 October 2006

European Aviation Safety Agency
Postfach 10 12 53
D-50452 Kln, Germany

www.jaa.nl

J OEB Bombardier CL-604/CL-605
Issue 0,
22 October 2006
1
EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY/
JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES

JOINT OPERATIONAL EVALUATION BOARD
REPORT


Jaap Meijer
Chairman JOEB CL-605
Issue 0,
22 October 2006
2

1. CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

1. CONTENTS 2

2. REVISION RECORD 3

3. GLOSSARY 5

4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

5. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION 8
5.1 History
5.2 Overview
5.3 Process
5.4 Results

6. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 10

7. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 11

8. INITIAL TYPE RATING TRAINING COURSE 12

9. DIFFERENCES TRAINING COURSE 13

10. SPECIAL EMPHASIS TRAINING 14
10.1 CL-604
10.2 CL-604

11. CURRENCY 16

12. CABIN CREW REQUIREMENTS 17

13. MISCELLANEOUS 18

APPENDIX 1. EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 19

APPENDIX 2. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (MDR) 20

APPENDIX 3. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (ODR) 21
3.0 Definitions of ODR training levels
3.1 ODR Tables Challenger 604 to Challenger 605
3.2 ODR Tables Challenger 605 to Challenger 604

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
3

2. REVISION RECORD

Issue Nr. Date Pages Published

Revision 0 22 October 2006 All 14/12/06

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
4

3. GLOSSARY

AC Advisory Circular
ADF Automatic Direction Finder
ADG Air Driven Generator
ADS Air Data System
AEG Aircraft Evaluation Group
AFCS Automatic Flight Control System
AFM Airplane Flight Manual
AGL Above Ground Level
AMC Acceptable Means of Compliance
AOC Air Operator Certificate
AOM Airplane Operations Manual
AP Autopilot
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
APR Automatic Performance Reserve
ARP Air Data Reference Panel
AT Auto Throttle
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATPL Airline Transport Pilot License
AWO All Weather Operations
CCP Cursor Control Panel
CDU Control Display Unit
CPD Common Procedures Document
CPL Commercial Pilot License
CPT Cockpit Procedure Trainer
CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder
DA Decision Altitude
DCP Display Control Panel
DH Decision Height
DRP Display Reversionary Panel
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
ECS Environmental Control System
EFB Electronic Flight Bag
EFIS Electronic Flight Instrument System
EGPWS Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System
EICAS Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCL Flight Crew Licensing
FCOM Flight Crew Operating Manual
FCP Flight Control Panel
FDR Flight Data recorder
FGS Flight Guidance System
FMA Flight Mode Annunciator
FMS Flight Management System
FSB Flight Standardization Board
FTD Flight Training Device
GPS Global Positioning System
GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System
HAA Height Above Aerodrome
IEM Interpretative and Explanatory Material
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
Issue 0,
22 October 2006
5
IRS Inertial Reference System
ISA International Standard Atmosphere
J AA J oint Aviation Authorities
J OEB J oint Operational Evaluation Board
J SET J oint Simulator Evaluation Team
LH Left Hand
LIFUS Line Flying Under Supervision
LOFT Line Oriented Flight Training
MCR Master Common Requirements
MCDU Multifunction Control Display Unit
MDA Minimum Descent Altitude
MDR Master Difference requirements
MFD Multi-Function Display
MMEL Master Minimum Equipment List
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
MLAW Maximum Landing Weight
MZFW Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
NAA National Aviation Authority
ODR Operator Difference Requirements
PFD Primary Flight Display
PIC Pilot In Command
QRH Quick Reference Handbook
RH Right Hand
RTU Radio Tuning Unit
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
STD Synthetic Training Device
TAWS Terrain Awareness and Warning System
TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System
TCCA Transport Canada Civil Aviation
TRTO Type Rating Training Organization
VA Design maneuvering speed
VFE Maximum flaps extended speed
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VLE Maximum landing gear extended speed
VLO Maximum landing gear operating speed
VMO Maximum operating speed
VMCA Minimum control speed air
VMCG Minimum control speed ground
TSO Technical Standard Order
VNAV Vertical Navigation
VS Stall speed
WOW Weight on Wheels

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
7
5. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION

5.1 History

Bombardier Aerospace will introduce a modified configuration of the CL-600-2B16 as the new
production aircraft. Beginning with aircraft serial number 5701, model CL-600-2B16 aircraft
will be referred to by the manufacturer as Bombardier Challenger 605, the older Challenger
604 configuration will be discontinued. The Challenger 605 is merely a product upgrade to a
certified aircraft, which has already been in service for a long time. Both aircraft share the
same TCCA Type Certificate Data Sheet (A21EA). It should be noted, that, at this time, an
EASA TCDS does not exist for the CL-600-2B16 (604) although a draft document is currently
under development. When the TCDS is available, the 605 will appear as a notation or
amendment. Until now, there has been no operational evaluation of the CL 604 by
EASA/J AA.
Both aircraft are not considered to be variants of Regional J et or earlier Challenger series
(CL-600/601) airplanes. No comparison was conducted between CL-604/605 and these
aircraft and no credit may be given for training, checking and currency.

The 605 configuration features a new passenger cabin interior, enlarged and repositioned
passenger windows, a new tail cone and introduces the Rockwell Collins Pro-Line 21
avionics suite to the CL-600-2B16 aircraft. The 604 and 605 share identical handling
characteristics and in-flight operational procedures.
Bombardier has requested that an operational evaluation be conducted to define the training,
currency and checking differences that exists between the two configurations and that the
benefits associated with single license endorsement be granted.

5.2 Overview

The Bombardier Challenger 605 is a swept wing executive aircraft, designed for up to 19 passengers
and 2 cockpit crew.
The MTOW of the CL-605 is 21,863 kg (48,200 lb).
It is capable of cruise speeds up to Mach 0.83 in RVSM airspace (Mmo =0.85) at a maximum altitude
of 41,000 ft MSL.

The aircraft is equipped with two general Electric CF 34-3B high by-pass ratio turbofan engines. The
engines are flat-rated to ISA +15 degrees C. Normal thrust rating is 8729 pounds per engine. An
APR system, when armed for take-off, increases the thrust on the operating engine in case of an
engine failure.
An Auto Throttle System is installed to maintain reference airspeed or engine fan speed.

The primary flight controls, elevators, rudders and ailerons, are hydraulically operated. Artificial
control loading is provided at the individual control columns, control wheels and rudder pedals.
The Automatic Flight Control System, a subsystem of the Collins ProLine 21 avionics system, is a
fully integrated flight control system. It includes a dual channel two-axis autopilot.

Hydraulically operated spoilers provide drag for use in flight as well as on the ground.
The trailing edge flaps are electrically operated and can be selected to 4 positions: 0 20 30 45
degrees.
Trim systems are installed for rudder, aileron and elevator and operated electrically.

A flight management system, controlled by MCDUs on each, side is fully integrated in the operation
of the aircraft. It calculates take-off and landing performance parameters, it builds an operational flight
plan from take-off until landing and calculates a vertical path.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
8
The main difference between the two variants is the recently developed Collins ProLine 21 EFIS and
avionics package. Its main features are one primary flight display and one multi-function display and
the associated controls on each side of the cockpit.

5.3 Process

During the Operational Evaluation of the CL-605 four distinct steps could be recognized in the
process:
Kick-off meeting April 2006
Pre-audit J uly 2006
Actual evaluation Aug. Sep. 2006
Feedback and report Sep. Oct. 2006

During the kick-off meeting with the manufacturer, in which all three chairmen participated,
agreement was reached about a number of essential parts of the evaluation.
Where the manufacturer, at first, was not convinced of the necessity to conduct operational suitability
flights for an improved version of an airplane type, which has been in service already for a long time,
the OEB team members maintained, that flying the actual aircraft in its actual environment was the
ultimate proof. Finally agreement was established to make available to each board member one flight
in the airplane during which he would perform pilot flying duties, while he would also have a chance to
act as observer on one other flight.
The schedule for the actual evaluation was discussed at length as well. Four board members were to
follow a type-rating course for the CL-605, followed by a difference course for the CL-604, while four
other members, already type-rated on the CL-604, would follow type-recurrent training for this variant,
followed by a difference course for the CL-605 (see Appendix 1).
Especially for those, who were scheduled to complete a full initial course, followed by a difference
training, the initially proposed schedule was very tight and a new schedule, leaving some time to
study and for personal purposes was agreed upon.
Once the schedule was established, logistic arrangements could be made.
It turned out to be very useful to have made these arrangements and commitments beforehand and
not have to deal with these issues again, once the actual evaluation had started.

The pre-audit was performed in J uly to confirm, that the manufacturer was indeed ready for the
evaluation. This audit was performed by the OEB and FSB chairmen, while the J OEB chairman
provided input to the questionnaire, which was used during the audit.
Ground school facilities/training material were all prepared and ready, while in J une the CL605 flight
simulator had been evaluated and approved to level C by a team of experts from UK-CAA.

Using the outcome of the kick-off meeting and the audit, the actual evaluation could be run in an
efficient way by all parties involved.
One group of 4 previously qualified CL-604 pilots received CL-604 refresher training. Another group
of 4 pilots received CL-605 initial training.
The CL-604 pilots then received difference training in the CL-605 and underwent proficiency checks
in a CL-605 simulator.
The newly qualified CL-605 pilots received difference training in the CL-604 and underwent
proficiency checks in the CL-604 simulator.
All 8 pilots participated in CL-605 Operational Suitability flights to validate the proposed AFM normal,
abnormal and emergency procedures in the actual operational environment.
A comment-response document was used to communicate between the team leader and the
manufacturer. Some forty comments were raised and will be replied to by Bombardier. Most of those
comments were about the abnormal/emergency procedures and the QRH.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
9
At the end of the evaluation period, feedback was provided to Bombardier during the out-briefing.
One specific issue led to further discussions. The evaluation team requires practical enhancement
during difference training, specifically for the control and display functions of the avionics systems,
which are quite different between the 2 airplane variants. There was agreement between the
manufacturer and the evaluation team about the basic issue, but a discussions evolved about the
extent of this extra practice and about the training aids to be used.
The text in this report (Appendix 2) reflects the harmonized position of the 3 evaluation teams.

Reports will be written by the 3 chairmen and offered to their respective authorities for approval. The
generally accepted time for this report is within 1 month.

The J OEB, OEB and FSB are responsible for conducting future evaluations of the CL-604 and CL-
605 aircraft, its derivatives and of all changes to the aircraft, such as software modifications and/or
the addition of new systems, such as HUD. The Boards will then determine the associated impact on
training, checking and currency and will amend this report accordingly.

5.4 Results

1. In accordance with the provisions in J AR-FCL Single License Endorsement is assigned to
CL-604 and CL-605. It is designated CL-604/605.

2. The basic Type Rating training course as described in Chapter 8 is recommended for
approval.

3. The Differences Training course as described in Chapter 9 is recommended for approval.
Additional practical enhancement as described in Appendix 2 is considered essential.

4. The Operational Suitability flights confirmed, that procedures and checklists are adequate
and that training had been appropriate. No additional issues surfaced during these flights.

5. A compliance check against J AR-OPS K and L was not performed. The only available aircraft
is still in an experimental configuration, while most items in a compliance checklist are
responsibility of a J AR-OPS 1 operator and need to be checked during an AOC application
for an airplane in an operator specific configuration.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
10
6. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS

MDR provisions apply when differences between variants exist which affect crew knowledge, skills, or
abilities related to flight safety (e.g. Level A or greater differences).
Master Difference Requirements (MDRs) for the CL-604 and CL-605 are presented in Appendix 2.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
11
7. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS

Operator Difference Requirements (ODR) tables are used to show an operators compliance method
in mixed fleet operations. ODR tables for operators conducting mixed fleet operations, using CL-604
and CL-605 are shown in Appendix 3. The tables represent an acceptable means to comply with
MDR provisions. The tables do not necessarily represent the only acceptable means of compliance.
An operator seeking different means of compliance must request and obtain approval from its
authority of its specific ODR tables.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
12
8. INITIAL TYPE RATING TRAINING COURSE

Bombardier is an approved Type Rating Training Organization under J AR-FCL (Approval Certificate
number UK/TRTO-75). Courses are conducted under the direction of the Head of Training.
The Bombardier CL 604 and CL 605 Type Rating training courses consist of the following elements:
Ground school: 9 days. Four full days and 5 days, which also include 5 FTD sessions of 2
hours to become familiar with the checklist and procedures and prepare for the full simulator
sessions.
A written ground school exam (120 questions, multiple choice), covering the aircrafts
systems, including performance and weight and balance.
One extra 2 hour FTD session to cover J AA requirements.
Flight simulator training, 5 sessions of 4 hours per crew.
Flight simulator skill test.
A simulator LOFT session (not required for J AA).
Aircraft training (landings).

During the J OEB evaluation, training was received as follows:
Ground school instruction: 53 hours.
FTD training: 12 hours per crew of 2.
Flight Simulator training, including skill test: 25 hours per crew of 2.
Aircraft training 0hr35min. (4 landings).

The J OEB recommends, that the course elements and number of hours above be regarded as the
minimum training required. Less experienced pilots would benefit from an extra course covering EFIS
and FMS operations, before entering the Type Rating training course.
Areas of special emphasis are covered in a separate Chapter (10).

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
13
9. DIFFERENCES TRAINING COURSE

Difference training from CL-605 to CL-604 and from CL-604 to CL-605, as proposed by Bombardier,
consists of a one day briefing, supported by desk top interactive computer based instruction (level C).
The J OEB concluded that further enhancement of this instruction is required, as described in the note
to the table in Annex 2 Master Differences Requirements.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
14
10. SPECIAL EMPHASIS TRAINING

10.1 CL-604

The J OEB has identified several aircraft systems and/or procedures (listed below) that should receive
special emphasis in an approved CL-604 Training Program:

Systems Integration Training:
Flight Control Panel (FCP)
Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA)
Flight Management System (FMS)

Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level C or D and/or aircraft):
Dual hydraulic system malfunctions (system 1 or 2, and system 3)
Air Driven Generator (ADG) deployment
Instrument flying on standby instruments
Primary Flight Display (PFD), Multifunction Display (MFD), EICAS status page reversionary
modes
Flight Control System J am procedures.
Fuel leaks.
Smoke procedures, including smoke removal
Integrated use of EICAS messages, switch positions and synoptic pages to determine aircraft
system status. Some switches (i.e. L/R to aux fuel transfer, fuel crossflow, and AC essential
bus transfer) are not represented by EICAS messages.

The J OEB also found that early exposure to the FCP, FMA and FMS is important, especially for pilots
with no previous EFIS or FMS experience. Establishing early confidence in manually flying the
aircraft, converting from manual to automatic (FMS controlled) flight mode and back is equally
important due to heavy reliance on the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). In the event of a
flight path deviation due to input error or system malfunction, the flight crew must be able to
comfortably transition from automatic to manual mode and back in an orderly fashion.

Special Flight Characteristics:
The J OEB recommends, that all CL604 pilots be given exposure to the Dutch Roll
characteristics of the airplane following a yaw damper failure and be instructed in the specific
technique (rudder inputs) to maintain control.
Special emphasis during training should be placed in the area of roll control during multiple
hydraulic system failure, crosswind landing and rollout, and zero-flap landing.
The J OEB has determined that zero-flap approaches and landings to a full stop are required
to be demonstrated by applicants seeking type certification in this aircraft. The aircrafts
trailing edge flap is powered by the electrical system and there is no alternate means of flap
operation in the case of electrical system failure. The aircraft has a relatively high approach
and landing speed and has a tendency to float if normal landing flare technique is used.
Thrust reverser deployment during a zero flap landing tends to cause the nose to pitch-up,
requiring significant pilot input to maintain nose wheel contact with the runway

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
15
10.2 CL-605

In addition to the items delineated in 10.1, the CL-605 J OEB has identified additional items (listed
below) that should receive special emphasis in an approved CL-605 Training Program:

Systems Integration Training:
Display Control Panel (DCP)
Cursor Control Panel (CCP)
Integrated Flight Information System (IFIS, which is optional equipment not evaluated by
J OEB)

Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level C or D and/or aircraft):
Operations with inoperative Auto Throttle

Special Flight Charactistics:
The CL-605 J OEB found no additional special flight characteristics other than that described in 10.1.
The Special Flight Characteristics defined in 10.1 also pertain to training in the CL-605.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
16
11. CURRENCY

There are no specific currency requirements applicable to either the CL 604 or the CL 605,
beyond those of J AR-OPS 1.965 and 1.970 for AOC holders or J AR-FCL 1.026 and 1.245 for
private operators.
When operating on both variants, currency is considered to be common for the CL-604 and
CL-605 (J AR-OPS 1.980 - J AR-FCL 1.245). However, J AR-FCL 1.235 applies and a new
difference course is required if no flight has been flown in the new variant within 2 years of
completing the difference course.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
17
12. CABIN CREW REQUIREMENTS

There is no requirement for a cabin crew member on this aircraft. The aircraft has a Type I Main Door
on the LH side of the cabin and a Type 3 over wing Emergency Exit on the RH side.
In case of installation of a partition screen, which renders the cabin invisible from the cockpit,
airworthiness regulations may require a cabin crew member to be present in the cabin.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
18
13. MISCELLANEOUS

13.1 Landing Minimum Category

According to J AR - OPS 1.430 (C), Appendix 2, the CL-604 and CL-605 are operated as a
category C aircraft during all approaches. VAT is 137 knots at the maximum gross landing
weight of 38,000 pounds (landing flap setting 45 degrees).

13.2 All Weather Operations

Take-off capability at the lowest J AA minima (J AR-OPS, subpart E) was evaluated during the flight
simulator part of the training and was found to be acceptable.
The CL-604 is certified for Cat II minima by the FAA. However, approach capabilities other than Cat. I
ILS, non-precision and FMS overlay instrument approaches were not evaluated during this
evaluation. For approval of approach limitations below Cat I, a specific evaluation of the aircrafts
capabilities will need to be performed.

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
19
APPENDIX 1. MEMBERS OF EVALUATION TEAM.

TRANSPORT CANADA CIVIL AVIATION

J ohn MacNamara OEB Chairman, Team Leader, CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference
Peter Vetere CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference
Creg McConnell CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Steve Ford FSB Chairman CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference
Rod Huette CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference
Ray Stinchcomb CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference
Ron Frank CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference

EASA/J AA

J aap Meijer J OEB Chairman CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference

Issue 0,
22 October 2006
20
APPENDIX 2. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (MDR)

AIRPLANE TYPE RATING: CL600-2B16

FROM AIRPLANE

604

605

604

---------

C*/B/A

T
O

A
I
R
P
L
A
N
E

605 C*/B/A ---------

* The CL-604 and CL-605 are functionally equivalent and Level C differences training is the highest
level required. In the case of pilots moving from one variant to the other, operators and training
providers must provide pilots with training permitting them to become fully cognizant of the
differences in flight deck layout and avionics controls.

Interactive computer based training is suitable to impart the necessary knowledge. However, the
operator is responsible to ensure the training is consolidated through the use of a device which
provides for tactile manipulation of system related controls and switches, and emulates panel
and instrument indications. An acceptable "device" as described in this paragraph is one that
replicates the functionality, operation and installation of the Collins Proline Avionic system in the
Challenger 604 or 605, as appropriate, and may include, but is not limited to, an FTD,
aircraft simulator, or aircraft.

Bombardier CL605

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bombardier CL605

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

Bombardier Challenger 604

You might also like