曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
wind had blown water into the control unit housings,
where the water froze, causing the controls to jam.
En-Gulf-ed
Communications between pilots and controllers is
secondhand when aircraft are beyond the range of ATC’s
radio coverage. The middleman in the process is a
commercial radio service (also known as General Purpose
radio), which uses the high frequency ranges. A Center
controller working the Gulf of Mexico describes the
confusion that can result when communication is indirect:
n [I] was working air carrier A at FL350. The oceanic
controller received a message from commercial radio that
air carrier B was past fix at FL350. We had no
information on aircraft B. I asked aircraft A to say
coordinates—26°08' / 88°15'. I expedited a climb to
FL370 for aircraft A. Aircraft B checked in, also with
coordinates of 26°08' / 88°15'. I expedited aircraft B to
descend to FL330. Two minutes later, aircraft A reported
[climbing through] FL360 and aircraft B reported
[descending through] FL340. These aircraft were nonradar
in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on coordinates, they
were approximately 40 miles apart and converging when
we became aware of the situation.
A number of pilots also report communications difficulties
in the Gulf and on Oceanic routes. An air carrier Captain,
enroute to the U.S. over the Gulf of Mexico, credits TCAS for
providing information when ATC couldn’t:
n Foreign Center A handed us off to Foreign Center B.
We made numerous calls to Center B and although we
could hear them conversing with [another air carrier], we
couldn’t get them to respond to our calls. We continued to
call every 2-3 minutes. As we approached fix, our TCAS
system annunciated, “Traffic, traffic.” Air carrier Y
passed our 12 o’clock position at 8-9 nautical miles, coaltitude.
It wasn’t a near mid-air, but certainly was closer
than it should have been. TCAS is a godsend.
Both pilots and controllers can help minimize confusion
and misunderstandings by following good basic radio
procedures. In addition, when the usual communication
methods fail to get a response, relaying position reports
and other information via another aircraft may be an option.
Custom-airy Service
Inability to establish communications was equally
distressing for a General Aviation pilot, who learned the
consequences of altering the flight-planned flight without
verifying the change with the appropriate authorities.
n Returning from vacation in the Bahamas. We were on
a VFR flight plan, direct to XYZ for Customs. I started
calling FSS without success. I could hear voices of other
aircraft, but could not transmit or receive acknowledgment
of my transmission. The flight across 200 miles of
uninterrupted ocean in a single-engine aircraft has a
sobering and sometimes frightening effect. I was confused
and upset by my failure to arouse FSS.
ABC has been my home airport for 20 years, and has
recently introduced Customs and Immigration on the
airport. So I flew directly to ABC [instead of XYZ]…and
taxied directly to the Customs facility to report the incident.
We were notified by an officer at Customs that we were to
remain in the airplane until investigators arrived. We
were questioned for approximately two hours by Customs
agents, the airplane was searched, and I am advised it
was dismantled in part, after which we were released. I
did not have approval for landing at ABC or any other
airport, and was required by the rules to land at XYZ.
The Entry Requirements Section of the Aeronautical
Information Manual explains the procedures for entering
the U.S. and clearing Customs. Pilots must land at the
Customs location they list on their flight plan, or provide
advance notice directly to Customs regarding the location
of intended arrival.
Managing Cockpit Interruptions and Distractions
n Snowing at [airport]. Taxiing to Runway 6R for
departure. Instructions were: taxi to taxiway B, to taxiway
D, to Runway 6R. As First Officer I was busy with
checklists (and) new takeoff data. When I looked up, we
were not on taxiway D but taxiway W. ATC said stop.
This pilot’s report of a taxiing mishap was one of 107
ASRS incidents recently reviewed by human factors
scientists at NASA Ames, as part of a research study on
why flight crews are vulnerable to errors caused by
preoccupation, distraction, and interruptions. The results
of the study are summarized in an article that appears in
the latest issue (#10) of the ASRS Directline publication,
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
CALL BACK 1(112)
