相关题目
A recent Eurocontrol study determined that Europe averages about one runway incursion a day and one potentially very serious runway incursion every 14 days. An FAA study of data from 1997 to 2001 showed similar numbers for the United States. Many organizations believe that the problem of runway incursions must be attacked or it is bound to increase with an increase in world aviation activity. In fact, the number of reported incursions has been increasing at a faster rate than the number of flights worldwide has been increasing. One study group determined that a 20 percent increase in aircraft operating at a particular airport produced a 140 percent increase in the possibility of runway incursions. Other studies have used mathematical models which predict a big increase in the potential for runway incursions in the next twenty years. Some Statistics EuroControl Statistical Reference Area (ERSA) has the following data for the number of runway incursions per million flights: ? 1998 – 3 incursions per million flights ? 1999 – 6 incursions per million flights ? 2000 – 10 incursions per million flights ? 2001 – 23 incursions per million flights ? 2002 – 21 incursions per million flights ? 2003 – 40 incursions per million flights Several organizations , including the FAA and EuroControl, had similar data on the major cause of reported runway incursions: ? Pilot Error was determined to be the cause in 51 percent of all reported runway incursions. ? Vehicle or Pedestrian Error was determined to be the cause in 29 percent of reported incursions. ? Controller Error was determined to be the cause in 20 percent of reported incursions.EuroControl also classified several years of runway incursion reports according to seriousness. Their data was similar to FAA data using a similar classification: ? About 31% of reported incursions were classified as having No Risk. ? Another 34% were classified as having Some Risk . ? And 30% were classified as having Significant Risk. That totals 95%. ? The other 5% of reported Incursions were classified as being Extremely Hazardous. We will be coming back to look more carefully at some of this data later in the module. And we will look in great detail at most of the causal factors and at some real world.3. What is the average number of runway incursions per million flights from 1998 to 2003 according to EuroControl Statistical Reference Area’s data.
A recent Eurocontrol study determined that Europe averages about one runway incursion a day and one potentially very serious runway incursion every 14 days. An FAA study of data from 1997 to 2001 showed similar numbers for the United States. Many organizations believe that the problem of runway incursions must be attacked or it is bound to increase with an increase in world aviation activity. In fact, the number of reported incursions has been increasing at a faster rate than the number of flights worldwide has been increasing. One study group determined that a 20 percent increase in aircraft operating at a particular airport produced a 140 percent increase in the possibility of runway incursions. Other studies have used mathematical models which predict a big increase in the potential for runway incursions in the next twenty years. Some Statistics EuroControl Statistical Reference Area (ERSA) has the following data for the number of runway incursions per million flights: ? 1998 – 3 incursions per million flights ? 1999 – 6 incursions per million flights ? 2000 – 10 incursions per million flights ? 2001 – 23 incursions per million flights ? 2002 – 21 incursions per million flights ? 2003 – 40 incursions per million flights Several organizations , including the FAA and EuroControl, had similar data on the major cause of reported runway incursions: ? Pilot Error was determined to be the cause in 51 percent of all reported runway incursions. ? Vehicle or Pedestrian Error was determined to be the cause in 29 percent of reported incursions. ? Controller Error was determined to be the cause in 20 percent of reported incursions.EuroControl also classified several years of runway incursion reports according to seriousness. Their data was similar to FAA data using a similar classification: ? About 31% of reported incursions were classified as having No Risk. ? Another 34% were classified as having Some Risk . ? And 30% were classified as having Significant Risk. That totals 95%. ? The other 5% of reported Incursions were classified as being Extremely Hazardous. We will be coming back to look more carefully at some of this data later in the module. And we will look in great detail at most of the causal factors and at some real world.2. The number of reported incursions has been increasing at a （ ）rate than the number of flights worldwide.
A recent Eurocontrol study determined that Europe averages about one runway incursion a day and one potentially very serious runway incursion every 14 days. An FAA study of data from 1997 to 2001 showed similar numbers for the United States. Many organizations believe that the problem of runway incursions must be attacked or it is bound to increase with an increase in world aviation activity. In fact, the number of reported incursions has been increasing at a faster rate than the number of flights worldwide has been increasing. One study group determined that a 20 percent increase in aircraft operating at a particular airport produced a 140 percent increase in the possibility of runway incursions. Other studies have used mathematical models which predict a big increase in the potential for runway incursions in the next twenty years. Some Statistics EuroControl Statistical Reference Area (ERSA) has the following data for the number of runway incursions per million flights: ? 1998 – 3 incursions per million flights ? 1999 – 6 incursions per million flights ? 2000 – 10 incursions per million flights ? 2001 – 23 incursions per million flights ? 2002 – 21 incursions per million flights ? 2003 – 40 incursions per million flights Several organizations , including the FAA and EuroControl, had similar data on the major cause of reported runway incursions: ? Pilot Error was determined to be the cause in 51 percent of all reported runway incursions. ? Vehicle or Pedestrian Error was determined to be the cause in 29 percent of reported incursions. ? Controller Error was determined to be the cause in 20 percent of reported incursions.EuroControl also classified several years of runway incursion reports according to seriousness. Their data was similar to FAA data using a similar classification: ? About 31% of reported incursions were classified as having No Risk. ? Another 34% were classified as having Some Risk . ? And 30% were classified as having Significant Risk. That totals 95%. ? The other 5% of reported Incursions were classified as being Extremely Hazardous. We will be coming back to look more carefully at some of this data later in the module. And we will look in great detail at most of the causal factors and at some real world.1. One potentially very serious runway incursion happened everydays according to a recent Eurocontrol study.
Many pilots and controllers are taught to have three aims when using the RT: be clear, be concise and be correct. Naturally, good pronunciation, reasonable speed, and the use of standard phraseologies contribute to clear, concise and correct. But the use of human language to communicate is an art and not a science. There are some built-in problems in human language that contribute to potential problems in aviation communications. A few are mentioned below. 1. Readback Error – If ATC says, Cleared to land, Runway two six left, and the pilot reads back, Cleared to land, Runway two six right, the pilot has committed a Readback Error. With distractions, multi-tasking and a busy ATC frequency, this error can happen and can be difficult to catch. 2. Hearback Error – In the previous example, if the controller fails to hear the mistake in the Readback, the controller has committed Hearback Error. He failed to listen carefully to the pilot’s Readback. Since the vast majority of readbacks are correct, it takes great discipline to listen carefully to each readback. 3. Expectation Bias – Human beings have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear. If you are lined up on the runway waiting for a take-off clearance, you may believe that the next take-off clearance is for you, even though it may be for another aircraft on a parallel or intersecting runway. You heard what you expected to hear, and committed the error of Expectation Bias. 4. Assumption – If you always get a landing clearance just as you turn base, it is easy to assume as you turn base that you are cleared to land. The way to fight assumption error is to seek confirmation, I’m cleared to land, please confirm? Assumption has been a factor in many aviation accidents. 5. Ambiguity – an ambiguous statement is one that could have two or more different meanings. Ambiguity is difficult to completely avoid in human language in a complex situation. If you are doing touch and go and ATC says You’re number three to follow the twin, the statement may be very clear. But if there are two twins in front of you in the circuit, there is a risk you may mistake one twin for the other. The situation makes the instruction ambiguous – the meaning is not clear, and you may need to seek clarification. Naturally, all of these potential language problems could become more likely or more hazardous if one or both of the communicating parties has low English proficiency.5.What is the best way to prevent assumption?
Many pilots and controllers are taught to have three aims when using the RT: be clear, be concise and be correct. Naturally, good pronunciation, reasonable speed, and the use of standard phraseologies contribute to clear, concise and correct. But the use of human language to communicate is an art and not a science. There are some built-in problems in human language that contribute to potential problems in aviation communications. A few are mentioned below. 1. Readback Error – If ATC says, Cleared to land, Runway two six left, and the pilot reads back, Cleared to land, Runway two six right, the pilot has committed a Readback Error. With distractions, multi-tasking and a busy ATC frequency, this error can happen and can be difficult to catch. 2. Hearback Error – In the previous example, if the controller fails to hear the mistake in the Readback, the controller has committed Hearback Error. He failed to listen carefully to the pilot’s Readback. Since the vast majority of readbacks are correct, it takes great discipline to listen carefully to each readback. 3. Expectation Bias – Human beings have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear. If you are lined up on the runway waiting for a take-off clearance, you may believe that the next take-off clearance is for you, even though it may be for another aircraft on a parallel or intersecting runway. You heard what you expected to hear, and committed the error of Expectation Bias. 4. Assumption – If you always get a landing clearance just as you turn base, it is easy to assume as you turn base that you are cleared to land. The way to fight assumption error is to seek confirmation, I’m cleared to land, please confirm? Assumption has been a factor in many aviation accidents. 5. Ambiguity – an ambiguous statement is one that could have two or more different meanings. Ambiguity is difficult to completely avoid in human language in a complex situation. If you are doing touch and go and ATC says You’re number three to follow the twin, the statement may be very clear. But if there are two twins in front of you in the circuit, there is a risk you may mistake one twin for the other. The situation makes the instruction ambiguous – the meaning is not clear, and you may need to seek clarification. Naturally, all of these potential language problems could become more likely or more hazardous if one or both of the communicating parties has low English proficiency.4.What can help controllers catch pilot’s readback error?
Many pilots and controllers are taught to have three aims when using the RT: be clear, be concise and be correct. Naturally, good pronunciation, reasonable speed, and the use of standard phraseologies contribute to clear, concise and correct. But the use of human language to communicate is an art and not a science. There are some built-in problems in human language that contribute to potential problems in aviation communications. A few are mentioned below. 1. Readback Error – If ATC says, Cleared to land, Runway two six left, and the pilot reads back, Cleared to land, Runway two six right, the pilot has committed a Readback Error. With distractions, multi-tasking and a busy ATC frequency, this error can happen and can be difficult to catch. 2. Hearback Error – In the previous example, if the controller fails to hear the mistake in the Readback, the controller has committed Hearback Error. He failed to listen carefully to the pilot’s Readback. Since the vast majority of readbacks are correct, it takes great discipline to listen carefully to each readback. 3. Expectation Bias – Human beings have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear. If you are lined up on the runway waiting for a take-off clearance, you may believe that the next take-off clearance is for you, even though it may be for another aircraft on a parallel or intersecting runway. You heard what you expected to hear, and committed the error of Expectation Bias. 4. Assumption – If you always get a landing clearance just as you turn base, it is easy to assume as you turn base that you are cleared to land. The way to fight assumption error is to seek confirmation, I’m cleared to land, please confirm? Assumption has been a factor in many aviation accidents. 5. Ambiguity – an ambiguous statement is one that could have two or more different meanings. Ambiguity is difficult to completely avoid in human language in a complex situation. If you are doing touch and go and ATC says You’re number three to follow the twin, the statement may be very clear. But if there are two twins in front of you in the circuit, there is a risk you may mistake one twin for the other. The situation makes the instruction ambiguous – the meaning is not clear, and you may need to seek clarification. Naturally, all of these potential language problems could become more likely or more hazardous if one or both of the communicating parties has low English proficiency.3.In the following communication, what errors are made by the pilots and controllers? ATC: cleared to land, runway 26 left. Pilot: cleared to land, runway 26 right.
Many pilots and controllers are taught to have three aims when using the RT: be clear, be concise and be correct. Naturally, good pronunciation, reasonable speed, and the use of standard phraseologies contribute to clear, concise and correct. But the use of human language to communicate is an art and not a science. There are some built-in problems in human language that contribute to potential problems in aviation communications. A few are mentioned below. 1. Readback Error – If ATC says, Cleared to land, Runway two six left, and the pilot reads back, Cleared to land, Runway two six right, the pilot has committed a Readback Error. With distractions, multi-tasking and a busy ATC frequency, this error can happen and can be difficult to catch. 2. Hearback Error – In the previous example, if the controller fails to hear the mistake in the Readback, the controller has committed Hearback Error. He failed to listen carefully to the pilot’s Readback. Since the vast majority of readbacks are correct, it takes great discipline to listen carefully to each readback. 3. Expectation Bias – Human beings have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear. If you are lined up on the runway waiting for a take-off clearance, you may believe that the next take-off clearance is for you, even though it may be for another aircraft on a parallel or intersecting runway. You heard what you expected to hear, and committed the error of Expectation Bias. 4. Assumption – If you always get a landing clearance just as you turn base, it is easy to assume as you turn base that you are cleared to land. The way to fight assumption error is to seek confirmation, I’m cleared to land, please confirm? Assumption has been a factor in many aviation accidents. 5. Ambiguity – an ambiguous statement is one that could have two or more different meanings. Ambiguity is difficult to completely avoid in human language in a complex situation. If you are doing touch and go and ATC says You’re number three to follow the twin, the statement may be very clear. But if there are two twins in front of you in the circuit, there is a risk you may mistake one twin for the other. The situation makes the instruction ambiguous – the meaning is not clear, and you may need to seek clarification. Naturally, all of these potential language problems could become more likely or more hazardous if one or both of the communicating parties has low English proficiency.2.What items contribute to clear, concise and correct communication between pilot and controller?
Many pilots and controllers are taught to have three aims when using the RT: be clear, be concise and be correct. Naturally, good pronunciation, reasonable speed, and the use of standard phraseologies contribute to clear, concise and correct. But the use of human language to communicate is an art and not a science. There are some built-in problems in human language that contribute to potential problems in aviation communications. A few are mentioned below. 1. Readback Error – If ATC says, Cleared to land, Runway two six left, and the pilot reads back, Cleared to land, Runway two six right, the pilot has committed a Readback Error. With distractions, multi-tasking and a busy ATC frequency, this error can happen and can be difficult to catch. 2. Hearback Error – In the previous example, if the controller fails to hear the mistake in the Readback, the controller has committed Hearback Error. He failed to listen carefully to the pilot’s Readback. Since the vast majority of readbacks are correct, it takes great discipline to listen carefully to each readback. 3. Expectation Bias – Human beings have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear. If you are lined up on the runway waiting for a take-off clearance, you may believe that the next take-off clearance is for you, even though it may be for another aircraft on a parallel or intersecting runway. You heard what you expected to hear, and committed the error of Expectation Bias. 4. Assumption – If you always get a landing clearance just as you turn base, it is easy to assume as you turn base that you are cleared to land. The way to fight assumption error is to seek confirmation, I’m cleared to land, please confirm? Assumption has been a factor in many aviation accidents. 5. Ambiguity – an ambiguous statement is one that could have two or more different meanings. Ambiguity is difficult to completely avoid in human language in a complex situation. If you are doing touch and go and ATC says You’re number three to follow the twin, the statement may be very clear. But if there are two twins in front of you in the circuit, there is a risk you may mistake one twin for the other. The situation makes the instruction ambiguous – the meaning is not clear, and you may need to seek clarification. Naturally, all of these potential language problems could become more likely or more hazardous if one or both of the communicating parties has low English proficiency.1.What are the objectives when using the RT?
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 5. Why did the refueler make the mistake according to refueler statement?
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 4. Why did the nozzle detection system fail?
