Did a Timeline impact the ZEROAVIA’s Competent Person surveillance?

ZEROAVIA PLANES AMD POWERPLANT TIME LINE
Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

ZEROAVIA’s modified Piper Malibu Mirage crashed in a flight test

AAIB cited a number of causes for the accident

Mentioned Competent Person underperformance

Not mention the Powertrain Timeline as a possible influence

Below is a thorough technical analysis of the crash of a ZEROAVIA test aircraft when an inverter failed to switch between a hydrogen fuel cell and the high voltage lithium battery. The UK[1] Aviation Accident Investigations Branch  (AAIB) issued a report which found fault, as reported by FLYING,  with—

power schematic

  • The inverter failure
  • The system status display obfuscated the warning for that failure
  • Insufficient ground testing “to determine the effect of the back voltage from a windmilling propeller on the inverter protection system,”
  • “The emergency procedure to clear an inverter lock out after the protection system operated was ineffective.
  • An investigation had not been carried out into a previous loss of power resulting from an inverter lock out, which occurred three flights prior to the accident flight.
  • The risk assessment had not been reviewed following the loss of propulsion on two previous flights.
  • Ad hoc changes were made to the flight test plan, including the position where the electrical power source was switched, without the knowledge of the competent person.”
  • CAA develop additional guidance “on the design and positioning of controls and displays used in the operation of the aircraft.”
  • It also recommended clarifying “the scope of projects considered suitable to be carried out under CAP1220.”

AND FINALLY…

 

  • In addition, the report called on CAA to ensure that the “individual nominated as a competent person under CAP1220, Operation of Aircraft Under E Conditions, has the knowledge, skills, experience, and capacity to manage and oversee the experimental test program.”

On the same date as the AAIB report, ZEROAVIA issued this statement:

ZeroAvia Statement on the Publication of the AAIB Report

July 7, 2022, 08:00 BST

We welcome the conclusion of the AAIB’s investigation into the causes of the off-airport landing that occurred last year 
(April 2021) at Cranfield Airport as part of our test flight programme under Project HyFlyer I. While the report does not 
make specific recommendations for ZeroAvia within its conclusions, many of the issues identified in the report were 
similarly noted in our internal investigation and have subsequently been addressed robustly. Over a year on, ZeroAvia has 
grown to over 150 employees, and the recommendations made in this report have shaped this growth.

We have embedded key learnings into both our organisational culture and structure, as well as our future technical designs. 
This includes the establishment of a Safety and Security Review Board, adding to our team with extensively qualified members 
in several critical positions, including within our design, airworthiness and flight test teams, and establishing a safety 
management system based on a ‘just’ aviation culture, including occurrence reporting, investigation and corrective actions functions.”
The AAIB report and the below article did not mention a factor that may well have contributed to the causal factors—the company’s Powertrain Timeline, an ambitious schedule for the initial development– the increasing capacity from 19 (not the current 4 seat Piper Malibu Mirage) 200 passengers PLUS extending the range from 300 NM to 5,000NM. It is fair to infer that the “competent person” felt pressure to move the test project forward.

ZEROAVIA powertrain timeline

The UK CAA defines that term as:

“Competent Person. This is the person who is responsible for the entire experimental test programme, and who signs the Declaration.[2]

Each of the problems cited by the AAIB might be ascribed to the lack of control of the experiment by the competent person. That observation raises the question of whether the Powertrain Timeline had any impact on  his/her willingness to advance these trials?

This is exciting technology, and it holds significant promise for greening aviation. It is easy to be caught up in that enthusiasm/momentum. At the same time, expedition without adequate regard for safety risk to delay the desired goal.

Sun to Plane

 

 

 

 

 


Lessons Learned From an Electric Airplane Accident

Investigators make safety recommendations after ZeroAvia’s forced landing.

Thom and Flying

July 11, 2022

Leading electric airplane developer ZeroAvia says it has “addressed robustly” many issues contributing to an accident of a modified Piper Malibucrash site Mirage (PA-46-350P) propelled by two electric motors.

In the April 2021 event, the airplane lost power during a flight test, causing a forced landing just outside Cranfield Airport (EGTC), in Bedfordshire, England. Neither member of the two-person flight crew was injured in the accident.

The event serves as a reminder that—although there have been many successes—the electric aviation industry still faces significant challenges in its journey toward making electric flight viable and reliable as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels.

AAIB report

According to the accident report, released July 7 by the U.K.’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), the airplane was reconfigured so its motors could be powered by either a high-voltage lithium battery or a hydrogen fuel cell. A key part of the powertrain includes devices called inverters [3]that transform direct current (DC) electricity from the energy sources to the motors. In the moments before the accident, “electrical power was lost to both motors as the power source was changed, and the inverters locked out, at a position in the circuit where the aircraft could not safely glide to the runway,” the AAIB report said.

Flight pattern

The inverters locked out, the report said, because during the change from battery to hydrogen fuel cell while in flight—a normal process in the electric aircraft’s operation—the propellers windmilled, which turned the motors. The motors acted as generators, producing energy that was fed back to the inverters, which triggered an overvoltage protection protocol that caused the inverters to lock out.

According to the report, the pilot in command identified the power loss from the aircraft response, rather than the instrument display. Nine seconds after the power loss at an altitude of 880 feet above the airfield, the crew said the inverters had been lost.

The pilot issued a mayday call and began a left turn to line up for landing on Runway 21, but “almost immediately he recognized that he did not have sufficient height to complete the maneuver,” the report said. The pilot then lowered the gear and selected full flaps for a forced landing at about 87 knots ground speed on a level grass field. The Piper hit a hedge and plowed through it, breaking off the left wing.

It stopped when its nosewheel and left main wheel rolled into a ditch, the report said. The flight crew exited the airplane unhurt through the “upper half of the cabin door.”

What Went Wrong

The accident report criticized the “location of the system status display and the absence of aural warnings. As a result, “critical information regarding the motor operation was not readily available to the pilot. The only indication of a loss of power was a change in color of the small symbols M1 and M2 on the cluttered system status display, which was obscured when the pilot’s hand was on the power lever.”CURRENT STATUS DISPLAY

cockpit panel

 

ZeroAvia also did not carry out sufficient ground testing “to determine the effect of the back voltage from a windmilling propeller on the inverter protection system,” the report said.

Shortly after the accident, ZeroAvia began its own internal investigation into the accident. “Many of the issues identified in the report were similarly noted in our internal investigation and have subsequently been addressed robustly,” ZeroAvia said in its July 7 statement. “We have embedded key learnings into both our organizational culture and structure, as well as our future technical designs.” The company said it has created a safety and security review board, as well as added “extensively qualified members in several critical positions, including within our design, airworthiness, and flight test teams.” The company also said it has established a “safety management system based on a ‘just’ aviation culture, including occurrence reporting, investigation, and corrective actions functions.”

ZeroAvia said future projects would incorporate lessons learned in terms of handling back voltage due to windmilling.

Other Factors

According to the report, other factors that contributed to the accident included:

  • “The emergency procedure to clear an inverter lock out after the protection system operated was ineffective.
  • An investigation had not been carried out into a previous loss of power resulting from an inverter lock out, which occurred three flights prior to the accident flight.
  • The risk assessment had not been reviewed following the loss of propulsion on two previous flights.
  • Ad hoc changes were made to the flight test plan, including the position where the electrical power source was switched, without the knowledge of the competent person.”

The airplane “met all the requirements to be flown under” the U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority regulations for electric airplanes (CAP1220), and “a comprehensive dossier was produced by the competent person. However, this was a complex project, and the competent person was unable to completely fulfill his responsibilities as detailed in CAP1220.” The report said the “competent person’s involvement was restricted in a number of areas due to issues within the organizational relationships, the fast tempo of the project, other work commitments, and restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

ZeroAvia

ZEROAVIA Hollister, CA

It’s important to note that ZeroAvia is one of the world’s leading developers of electric airplanes. Since 2017, the California-based company has been experimenting with existing small airplane platforms by converting them from traditional fossil-fuel burning powerplants to electric.

In 2020, the company flew what it called the world’s first hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered flight of a commercial-grade aircraft.

In 2021, ZeroAvia partnered with Alaska Air Group to develop a 76-seat electric airliner from a de Havilland Q400 and last May, it announced plans with Mitsubishi’s MHI RJ Aviation Group to electrify its CRJ series of regional jets.

Recommendations

The AAIB report recommended that the CAA develop additional guidance “on the design and positioning of controls and displays used in the operation of the aircraft.”the ZEROAVIA engine

It also recommended clarifying “the scope of projects considered suitable to be carried out under CAP1220.”

In addition, the report called on CAA to ensure that the “individual nominated as a competent person under CAP1220, Operation of Aircraft Under E Conditions, has the knowledge, skills, experience, and capacity to manage and oversee the experimental test program.”

 

 

[1] ZEROAVIA is a California based company but decided to test its aircraft in the UK under EASA rules. A silent criticism of the FAA’s certification standards? Note the UK government has invested in this venture.

[2] The term vaguely sounds like the ODA involved in the Boeing Max 8 certification debacle.

[3]The inverters were selected to match the power performance of the electric motor system and for compatibility with the input voltage from the battery and the output voltage needed for the motor (the latter of which runs from 400 to 800 V AC).” E-Mobility ENGINEERING

ZEROAVIA SPECs



 

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Be the first to comment on "Did a Timeline impact the ZEROAVIA’s Competent Person surveillance?"

Leave a comment