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
between the flight instructor and
trainee which contributed to the
incident. Examples included directives
or instructions; questions; recognition
or announcements of a problem;
predictions or warnings; status reports;
information acquisition; statements
referring to planning or goals; explanations;
and non-pertinent conversations.
(See the sidebar on the Properties
of ASRS Data.)
Initial query of the ASRS database
revealed 582 incident occurrences
from January 1988 through December
1996 which had the potential to meet
the scoping criteria for this study. We
screened a random sampling of these
reports to aid in hypothesis generation
and the development and refinement
of a coding instrument.
A final data set of 200 incidents
were selected that met the scoping
criteria for the study. Eighty-four
percent of these reports were submitted
by instructors; sixteen percent
were submitted by trainees. This
reporter distribution is almost identical
to that of the ASRS database for all
GA dual instruction incidents.
18 Issue Number 10
Surface Versus Airborne Communications Incidents
One third of our data set (66 reports) described
incidents involving aircraft operating on an
airport surface, and conducting external radio
communications. In our extensive experience as
flight instructors, the amount of time spent on
the airport surface in any type of dual instruction
is generally small–usually 15 percent (or less) of
an instructional period, even in primary instruction.
The occurrence of more GA dual instruction
incidents on the airport surface than expected
suggests that airports may be a problematic
environment for communications-related incidents.
7
For both surface and airborne incidents that
involved external radio communications, control
tower communications were reported the most
frequently. Of the 66 surface-based incidents, 47
(71 percent) cited communications with a control
tower. Another 117 reports that involved airborne
operations cited ongoing ATC communications.
Of these, 52 incidents (44 percent) cited communication
with towers, 39 incidents (33 percent)
referenced communication with TRACONs, and
21 incidents (18 percent) cited communications
with UNICOM or Centers. The prevalence of
tower-communication reports in our study set
reinforces the notion that effective management
of instructional communications while monitoring
Tower frequencies is crucial to the effective
and safe conduct of dual training operations,
both while on the surface and airborne.
Internal Factors
All reports included in our study set were classified
into broad groupings of verbal communication
anomalies that occurred within the cockpit.
Drawing on explicit references from the study
reports, we classified the types of instructor/
trainee statements, determined whether these
statements were heard by the intended recipient,
and evaluated the timeliness and appropriateness
of responses these statements elicited. Additionally
we sought to identify the equipment, and
task or workload-related (operational) factors
which played material roles in the events.
z|
y
y
zz
zz
{ ||
ATA/D
OCA/E
UCA/G
TCA/B
ARSA/C
Other
Figure 1 — Airspace Involved
3%
8%
11%
13%
18%
47%
47%
y
z{
|
yzy
{{
{{
| |
At Location
1 - 5 nm
6 - 10 nm
11 - 100 nm
Unknown
Figure 2 — Distance from Airport (miles)
40%
7%
11%
24%
18%
40%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
On Surface
1' - 300'
301' - 600'
601' - 900'
901' - 1,200'
1,201' - 1,500'
1,501' - 1,800'
1,801' - 2,100'
2,101' - 2,700'
1 % 5,000'
1 %
2 %
2 %
2 %
4 %
7 %
17 %
62 %
4 %
Figure 3 — AGL Altitude Range
(113 of 200 Total Reports)
Issue Number 10 19
Cockpit Communications Anomalies
Figure 4 (right) depicts the three most
frequently occurring combinations of
instructor/trainee verbal interaction
problems.
Confusing, erroneous, or misleading
statements were the leading type of
instructor communications anomaly
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
ASRS Directline(21)
