ING-0656 - Considerations GE CEOD Analysis

Ingeniería
de Operaciones de Vuelo
Memoria de Cálculo
Considerations regarding GE´s "Preliminary ING‐0656
Fecha: 05‐Jun‐2020
Austral Fleet CEOD Analysis" Lugar: Ingeniería de Operaciones de Vuelo

Introduction
In the context of the incidents related to engine failures that occurred during Austral's operations, we have received
a report from GE called "Preliminary Austral Fleet CEOD Analysis". The objective of the present analysis is to raise
objections to several of the statements contained therein.
In general terms, the report provided makes various statements of an operational nature based on comparisons of
statistical data in the form of box‐plots. In the presentation of such information, there is a great disparity in the amount
of data available between operators. This is of great importance since the report contains statements based on data
comparisons of the extreme values of very different statistical populations.
Additionally, regarding the construction of boxplot graphs, it is assumed that they have limited the extremes to the
standard value of 1.5 of the interquartile range, since it is not specified anywhere.
Finally, many of the statements contained in the report refer to anecdotal conditions that little, if any, would have to
do with the subject matter of the ongoing investigation.
Below are the slides that we considered worthy of some comment from us.
CEOD Data
In the presentation of continuous engine operation data (CEOD), data is presented for an operator named # 4, with
similar ranges of cycles and time for AUT, but which is later omitted in the comparisons made. This cannot avoid arising
the suspicion of cherry‐picking of the data in the comparisons that follow in the report.

Gerencia de Normas y Procedimientos Página 1 de 6

Ingeniería de Operaciones de Vuelo
Memoria de Cálculo

Altitudes –TO, Cruise, Landing
On this slide, the following statements are made:
 Austral does more low altitude Cruise than other operators
 No significant pattern in the altitudes of Origin and Destination airports

The second statement needs no comment. Regarding the first statement, although it should not be relevant to the
investigation, it needs some comments for the following. Austral‐operated flights have a duration ranging from 30
minutes to just over 3 hours. Even so, in the exposed graphics the following is striking. In the “Total Airborne Chart”
graph, it can be seen that operators #2, #3, #5 and #6 all have operations shorter than half an hour, exactly as Austral.
However, in the “Cruise Phase” graph, where it shows the average altitude during cruise, only AUT has altitudes below
22000 feet in the lower quartile. This shows a potential inconsistency with the data, as it is not very likely that a flight
with a duration of less than 30 minutes (less than 100 Nautical miles for an EMBRAER 190 operation), climbs higher
than 18000 feet in an optimized commercial operation, as it would most likely result in a pyramidal flight path.
In any case, there is coherence between the lower quartile of the duration of AUT flights, with the lower quartile
corresponding to the lower altitudes in the cruise phase graph.
It is not clear what is intended to be shown with this slide, since at no time is the aircraft's operational envelope
exceeded and it is operated in accordance with the limitations of the AFM.
Climb and Descent (Duration and Altitude Rates)

The following statements are made on this slide:
 A higher climb rate is observed for Austral compared to other operators.
 •No significant difference observed for descent rate.

Memoria de Cálculo

Once again, the second statement needs no comment. Regarding the first statement, the following observations apply.
First off all, the resulting climb rate is not only dependent on the engine thrust, as it is highly related to additional
operational variables. Mainly the climb speed, weight at the start of climb, and top of climb altitude. Based on the
information presented in the graphs, we can infer a correspondence of the higher climb rate quartile with the lower
quartile of the climb duration graph, being associated to the shorter flights.
If the additional variables are not taken into account, these charts seem to oversimplify the matter and appear
misleading.
EGT across Flight Phases

On this slide, the following statements are made:
 Austral Operates at Higher EGT during Climb
 Other Flight phases are similar to other operators.
The second statement needs no comment. Regarding the first one, the emphasis placed on that particular graph is
striking, especially since it refers to the upper quartile of the average EGT values, when operator # 3 has very similar
values in the upper end, but with a statistical concentration in higher values than the rest of the quartiles when
compared to AUT. Adding to this the fact that operator #3 almost doubles the amount of data available, as stated in
the CEOD Data slide; the statement seems misleading.
Additionally, it is significant that no comments are made regarding the rest of the data where the AUT values are lower
than the other operators’ values, and with a more benign distribution. For instance, AUT shows lower values of
Average EGT and Max EGT in the upper quartile for TO, Cruise and Descent, with a more compressed statistical
distribution.

Finally, given the data from operator # 3, and how the conclusions are driven, we could assume that it has also suffered
engine failures since its EGT values are statistically higher than those of AUT.

Memoria de Cálculo

N2 across Flight Phases

The following slide deserves similar comments as the previous one. On it, the following statements are made:
 Austral Operates at slightly higher N2 during Climb
 Other Flight phases are similar to other operators.


Memoria de Cálculo

This slide evidently shows a cherry‐picking attitude in the first statement; as it concentrates in the only value in which
AUT presents a higher Average N2, with the aggravating circumstance that the manifested difference is hardly
noticeable. This slide shows evidence of bias and intentionality in the analysis of the graphs presented, given that from
a more objective perspective, there is a great similarity in the values of N1 between operators, and in fact shows lower
values for AUT in most cases.
N1 across Flight Phases

This slide presents the following statements:
 Austral Operates at slightly higher N1 during Climb
 Other Flight phases are similar to other operators

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the conclusion presented in this slide suffers from the same lack of objectivity as in
the previous ones. Again, mention is made exclusively of the only graph in which the extreme data of AUT exceeds the
rest, even without mentioning that in this case it has a milder distribution of quartiles than operator # 3. In addition,
operator # 3 presents notoriously more adverse distributions in the rest of the charts. Should we assume that operator
# 3 has also suffered multiple engine failures?
Single Engine Taxi

This slide presents the statement “Austral uses ‘Both’ Engines for Taxi‐In and Taxi Out”. However, omits to mention
that the single engine taxi largely depends on the operational scenario. Austral operates mostly in national airports
where taxi time is very short, warm‐up time is a factor in the implementation of a single engine taxi policy.
Furthermore, it does not mention that the two‐engine taxi is the common situation in the comparisons shown.

Memoria de Cálculo

Summary (as of 12thMay)

This slide is comprised only of the following statements:
 Austral performs faster Climb compared to other operators
 Climb EGT, N1, N2 are higher than the other operators
 Significant population performs short duration and low‐cruise flights
The statements presented as a "summary" turn out to be misleading and are not based on an objective reading of the
data contained in the slides. This seems to show an intention to divert the focus of the investigation towards
operational factors that show no relation with the incidents.
Comparison of Event vs. Non‐Event (within Austral)

The final slides at the report consist of inconclusive data comparisons and no comments are deemed relevant.
Final comments
The report provided shows a lack of objectivity and an explicit bias, trying to address operational conditions that are
not shown to be conducive as causes of the events. Whatever the case, since the company's operations are carried
out in compliance with the AFM's operational envelope, it is unacceptable to suggest that the normal use of the aircraft
may result in the subsequent engine failures.
Additionally, with regard to the emphasis expressed on the climb segment, it gives the impression that the intention
is to accuse the use of CLB‐1 as a relevant factor, while its use as an operational policy responds to the fuel saving
recommendations provided by the EMBRAER, and is widely used by other operators.

Done by,
Ing. Aer. Sebastián Andrés Negro
Flight Operations Engineering Chief


ING-0656 - Considerations GE CEOD Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

ING-0656 - Considerations GE CEOD Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ingeniería

Climb and Descent (Duration and Altitude Rates)

EGT across Flight Phases

N2 across Flight Phases

N1 across Flight Phases

Single Engine Taxi

Summary (as of 12thMay)

Comparison of Event vs. Non‐Event (within Austral)

You might also like