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
1.1. Background
Previous philosophies of flight training emphasized manually controlling the aircraft. This has given way to a philosophy that stresses effective use of automa-tion to control flight path and aircraft energy.Despite this new emphasis, a 1996 report by the FAA Human Factors Team identified vulnerabilities in pilot man-agement of autom ation and situ ation awareness . It went on to recommend that operators provide guidance on the selection and appropriate use of autom ation . In addition , oper ators were urged to examine training to ensure that pilots would begin line operations with sufficient skills for managing advanced flight decks.
On this same topic, the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Development, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation found that traditional training methods“do not adopt a holistic approach to consol-idating, or developing, a pilot’s knowledge and under-st anding of airc r aft oper ation .” ( “Advanced Tech-nology Aircraft Safety Survey Report,” June 1998, p.23). Nearly 60 percent of the professional pilots that were surveyed in this report stated that they would like more “hands-on” avionics and FMS training (in either a dedicated FMS trainer or fixed-base simula-tor).A smaller percentage suggested that a more in-depth tr ain ing progr am on autom ated systems , automation philosophy and flight guidance mode characteristics would have improved their training.
Part of the challenge in developing any avionics train-ing program is defining what should be taught and how competency should be measu red. Cu rrently there exists no consensus within the aviation com-munity (airline, charter, business and private) on how much avionics training is enough, or for that matter, how much is too much. Therefore, a need exists to establish training guidelines for aircraft with auto-mated flight decks.
To address this need, NBAA’s Airspace/Air Traffic Committee formed an FMS/Charting Subcommittee in 1997. Its charter focuses on issues related to FMS and autom ated fli ght deck s . The FMS/Charting Subcommittee provides a forum for the exchange of information by corporate pilots, airline pilots, certifi-cation authorities, training companies and avionics m anuf actu rers . The Subcomm it tee de veloped th is document to address issues identified during their efforts to improve training and enhance safety.
1.2. Scope
This document is applicable to training programs for aircraft with integrated avionics systems standard from the aircraft manufacturer. The training objec-tives are designed for an initial course of instruction
(i . e. , ori ginal airc r aft type or tr ansition tr ain ing ) rather than a recurrent training program.
The avionics training devices, including simulators, are assumed to replicate the avionics in the aircraft. While this document provides training objectives for many components of an automated flight deck, it is acknowledged that not all components will be stan-dard equipment on all aircraft.
Industry - accepted term inology, abbre vi ations and acronyms have been used throughout. It is recognized that an airc r aft manuf actu rer may use dif ferent acronyms, abbreviations, or trade names to describe certain components. It may be desirable to substitute the manufacturer’s terminology in specific curricula.
As technology advances, new devices will be intro-duced. For example, the air data/inertial reference system (ADIRS) combines the ADC and IRS func-tions into a single unit. The pertinent sections of this document (ADC and IRS) remain applicable.
Procedures and equipment unique to international operations (e.g., RVSM, MNPS, etc.) are not covered in this document.
1.3. Prerequisite Knowledge
These guidelines assume prerequisite knowledge and skill in the following areas:
1.
Basic IFR procedures
2.
Weather radar
3.
Theory and principle of crew resource
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：NBAA Automated Flight Deck Training Guidelines(3)
