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
as to my position before he proceeded further.
Use the Correct CTAF
A Piper Pawnee had just finished towing a glider and was
returning to the field to land to the north, when a high-performance
Mitsubishi turboprop landed south on the same runway.
n The PA-25 had just completed a tow and was circling in for a
landing on Runway 34 and was making radio calls. The PA-25 was
on final about 50 feet off the deck when an MU-2 landed Runway
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from
The Office of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting
System,
P.O. Box 189,
Moffett Field, CA
94035-0189
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
March 2010 Report Intake
Air Carrier/Air Taxi Pilots 3344
General Aviation Pilots 1015
Controllers 714
Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other 493
TOTAL 5566
ASRS Alerts Issued in March 2010
Subject of Alert No. of Alerts
Aircraft or aircraft equipment 9
Airport facility or procedure 8
ATC equipment or procedure 7
TOTAL 24
The March 2010 CALLBACK (#363, Pilot and ATC Cones
of Confusion) stimulated more reader feedback than any issue
we’ve published in recent years. In this issue we looked at several
common IFR approach situations where (according to recent ASRS
reports) confusion may exist, including:
● Making a Procedure Turn
● Making a Hold-in-Lieu-of Procedure Turn
● Expecting a Straight-In Approach
This month we’d like to share some of the responses we received to
the three IFR scenarios described.
Pilot Feedback: Issue 363 was the best one you guys
have ever published. I thought it was just me arguing with the
controllers over GPS approach procedures!
No, you definitely are not alone in having these issues. ASRS has
been collecting IFR approach incident (and many other) reports for
years. In keeping with our mission to improve system safety, we
have been issuing alert messages and sharing de-identified reports
with the FAA, various industry organizations and other governmentindustry
groups. Many of our alerting messages have resulted in
fixes to published and operational procedures. And, of course, it
is our mission to share these issues with our readers – to provoke
thought and discussion.
Pilot Feedback: Some answer as to who was right / wrong
in each of the scenarios would be helpful. Simply providing
both sides of the story in an anecdotal way does not provide
clarification - it promotes confusion...
The answers of right vs. wrong, or correct vs. incorrect, are not
always clear-cut. In this instance (approach procedures), Section
5-4-9 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) explains when
a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn is required, and
also the circumstances in which these maneuvers are not permitted.
However, the AIM uses “radar vectors” and “straight in,” terms
which pre-date modern area navigation and GPS technologies.
ASRS reports indicate that controllers sometimes clear RNAVcapable
aircraft “direct” to IAF/FAF approach fixes in lieu of
assigning radar vectors; and/or fail to issue “straight in” approach
clearances (to cancel procedure turn/holding requirements) after
an RNAV-capable aircraft has been cleared direct to an approach
fix. The existing AIM language may promote pilots’ expectations
that controllers will use the terms “radar vectors” and “straight
in” exactly as described in the AIM, without consideration of an
aircraft’s alignment with the final approach course. Advances
in aircraft technology and related changes in air traffic control
practices may have contributed to pilot/controller confusion.
A controller’s response makes an additional point about
ATC training:
Controller Feedback: Speaking as a controller, the
training we have received on these issues has been VERY
minimal at best…We love the ability to “point and shoot”
(point the aircraft at a waypoint and clear them for the
approach), but the majority of controllers I work with do not
have a clear understanding of when this is not appropriate.
Just wanted to give you some insight on to what’s happening
on the other side of the mike….
A pilot respondent appears to agree with this controller:
Pilot Feedback: The REAL cone of confusion is with
ATC. Controllers are, almost universally, not properly
trained about the necessity to conduct a Procedure Turn
(unless the controller gives vectors, NoPT, or timed approach,
as you point out)….
While I agree that confirmation [of the controller’s intentions]
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
CALL BACK 3(92)
