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
distinction between the two should be regarded with caution.
This is not a serious issue for the purposes of the analysis,
however, as both domain-dependent relations and domain
entities produced basically identical results.
Overall, this suggests that, at least for the FMS sections of an
FCOM, there are likely to be roughly a dozen domainindependent
acts, thirty domain-dependent acts, a dozen domainindependent
relations, and several hundred domain-dependent
relations and domain entities.
4.2. Analysis of FCOM changes
In addition to the extended analysis of part of an individual
FCOM, as reported above, the project also examined 88
consecutive differences between A340 FCOMs of two airlines
and of Airbus Industrie in terms of the AFP view. The analysis
looked as two sections involving standard operating procedures,
totaling approximately 60 pages of material. Each observed
difference was analyzed using the AFP view, and classified in
terms of act (domain or meta) and phase (operational or
referential). The results are summarized in Table 1. The choice
of sections coded ensured that the analysis would
elements across functions (descriptive or prescriptive).
cover
Table 1. Distribution of acts and phases
The data reported in Table 1 suggest, not surprisingly, that
most of the changes in FCOMs involve domain acts in the
referential phase and meta acts in the operational phase. So, for
example, the deletion of a statement such as
The pilot’s view from the cockpit of the A340 during
approach and landing is particularly good. The cockpit
cut off angle is 20 degrees.
would be a domain-referential act because it refers explicitly to
domain knowledge, and a me&operational act because it does
not involve a change in the way that crews are supposed to
operate the aircraft. Less frequent are acts that are meta-acts in
the referential phase. These would be acts such as changing the
presentation style or organization of the FCOM. Even less
frequent are acts that are domain acts in the operational phase.
This seems logical, as changes to domain-operational acts
would be changes to the A34O’s actual procedures. For
example, Air France specifies exact wording to be us&l in
requests and announces for different cockpit-instrument
displays.
In fact, the four classes of acts am not independent Just as in
the analysis of the individual FMGS procedure discus& above
where a single action can constitute more than one kind of a&
so too can a single change affect more than one kind of act.
Accordingly, the project analyzed the relationships among the
classes of acts for the 88 FCOM changes previously classified.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
247
Tally 1 Act/Phase Classes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .1a9.. .........ii. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D . . . R. . . .- . M. . . . .O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . . . O. . . . -. .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ..................D..o.. .................................
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D . . . O. . . . -. .M . . . . O. . . . -. .D . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . .O . . . .- . D. . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . R. . . .- . M. . . . .R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . . . O. . . . -. . D. . . .R . . . -. .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 ; MO
Table 2. Distribution of act/phase dunes
As could be expected from the data in Table 1, by far the most
frequent pairing of act and phase classes was a domainreferential
act and a meta-operational act. In fact, this pairing
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料3(52)
