Doc9803航线运行安全审计 - 第15页 - 民航安全 Civil Aviation Safety - 航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:58:53

CONTINGENCY<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>
Crew members developed effective<o:p></o:p>
strategies to manage threats to safety<o:p></o:p>
— Threats and their consequences were<o:p></o:p>
anticipated<o:p></o:p>
— Used all available resources to<o:p></o:p>
manage threats<o:p></o:p>
1<o:p></o:p>
SAMPLE<o:p></o:p>
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY<o:p></o:p>
Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-3<o:p></o:p>
Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Austin</st1:City></st1:place>. All rights reserved.<o:p></o:p>
Execution Behavioral Markers Rating<o:p></o:p>
MONITOR / CROSSCHECK<o:p></o:p>
Crew members actively monitored and<o:p></o:p>
cross-checked systems and other crew<o:p></o:p>
members<o:p></o:p>
— Aircraft position, settings, and crew<o:p></o:p>
actions were verified 1<o:p></o:p>
WORKLOAD<o:p></o:p>
MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>
Operational tasks were prioritized and<o:p></o:p>
properly managed to handle primary<o:p></o:p>
flight duties<o:p></o:p>
— Avoided task fixation<o:p></o:p>
— Did not allow work overload 2<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:02

VIGILANCE Crew members remained alert of the<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
environment and position of the aircraft<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members maintained situational<o:p></o:p>
awareness 3<o:p></o:p>
AUTOMATION<o:p></o:p>
MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>
Automation was properly managed to<o:p></o:p>
balance situational and/or workload<o:p></o:p>
requirements<o:p></o:p>
— Automation setup was briefed to other<o:p></o:p>
members<o:p></o:p>
— Effective recovery techniques from<o:p></o:p>
automation anomalies<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:11

Review / Modify Behavioral Markers Rating<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
EVALUATION OF<o:p></o:p>
PLANS<o:p></o:p>
Existing plans were reviewed and<o:p></o:p>
modified when necessary<o:p></o:p>
— Crew decisions and actions were<o:p></o:p>
openly analyzed to make sure the<o:p></o:p>
existing plan was the best plan<o:p></o:p>
INQUIRY Crew members asked questions to<o:p></o:p>
investigate and/or clarify current plans<o:p></o:p>
of action<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members not afraid to express a<o:p></o:p>
lack of knowledge - “Nothing taken for<o:p></o:p>
granted” attitude<o:p></o:p>
3<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:20

ASSERTIVENESS Crew members stated critical<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
information and/or solutions with<o:p></o:p>
appropriate persistence<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members spoke up without<o:p></o:p>
hesitation<o:p></o:p>
SAMPLE<o:p></o:p>
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY<o:p></o:p>
A-4 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)<o:p></o:p>
Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Austin</st1:City></st1:place>. All rights reserved.<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:30

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:40

1 2 3 4<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Poor<o:p></o:p>
Observed performance had<o:p></o:p>
safety implications<o:p></o:p>
Marginal<o:p></o:p>
Observed performance was<o:p></o:p>
barely adequate<o:p></o:p>
Good<o:p></o:p>
Observed performance was<o:p></o:p>
effective<o:p></o:p>
Outstanding<o:p></o:p>
Observed performance was<o:p></o:p>
truly noteworthy<o:p></o:p>
Execution Behavioral Markers Rating<o:p></o:p>
MONITOR /CROSSCHECK<o:p></o:p>
Crew members actively monitored and<o:p></o:p>
cross-checked systems and other crew<o:p></o:p>
members<o:p></o:p>
— Aircraft position, settings, and crew<o:p></o:p>
actions were verified 1<o:p></o:p>
WORKLOAD<o:p></o:p>
MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>
Operational tasks were prioritized and<o:p></o:p>
properly managed to handle primary<o:p></o:p>
flight duties<o:p></o:p>
— Avoided task fixation<o:p></o:p>
— Did not allow work overload 3<o:p></o:p>
VIGILANCE Crew members remained alert of the<o:p></o:p>
environment and position of the aircraft<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members maintained situational<o:p></o:p>
awareness 2<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:50

AUTOMATION<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>
Automation was properly managed to<o:p></o:p>
balance situational and/or workload<o:p></o:p>
requirements<o:p></o:p>
— Automation setup was briefed to other<o:p></o:p>
members<o:p></o:p>
— Effective recovery techniques from<o:p></o:p>
automation anomalies<o:p></o:p>
Review / Modify Behavioral Markers Rating<o:p></o:p>
EVALUATION OF<o:p></o:p>
PLANS<o:p></o:p>
Existing plans were reviewed and<o:p></o:p>
modified when necessary<o:p></o:p>
— Crew decisions and actions were<o:p></o:p>
openly analyzed to make sure the<o:p></o:p>
existing plan was the best plan<o:p></o:p>
INQUIRY Crew members asked questions to<o:p></o:p>
investigate and/or clarify current plans<o:p></o:p>
of action<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members not afraid to express a<o:p></o:p>
lack of knowledge — “Nothing taken<o:p></o:p>
for granted” attitude<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 18:59:59

ASSERTIVENESS Crew members stated critical<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
information and/or solutions with<o:p></o:p>
appropriate persistence<o:p></o:p>
— Crew members spoke up without<o:p></o:p>
hesitation<o:p></o:p>
Narrative<o:p></o:p>
Your narrative should provide a context. What did the crew do well? What did the crew do poorly? How<o:p></o:p>
did the crew perform when confronted with threats, crew errors, and significant events? Also, be sure to<o:p></o:p>
justify your behavioral ratings.<o:p></o:p>
Routine – no comments<o:p></o:p>
SAMPLE<o:p></o:p>
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY<o:p></o:p>
Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-5<o:p></o:p>
Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Austin</st1:City></st1:place>. All rights reserved.<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 19:00:09

Descent / Approach / Land Technical Worksheet<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Descent (Above <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="True" SourceValue="10000" UnitName="ft">10,000 ft</st1:chmetcnv>.)<o:p></o:p>
Approach and Land (Below <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="True" SourceValue="10000" UnitName="ft">10,000 ft</st1:chmetcnv>.)<o:p></o:p>
1 Was the approach briefed before the TOD? (Yes / No) Yes<o:p></o:p>
2 Did the crew begin the descent before or at the FMS TOD? (Yes / No) Yes<o:p></o:p>
3 Did the aircraft get significantly above/below the FMS or standard<o:p></o:p>
path? (Yes / No) No<o:p></o:p>
If “Yes”, explain in the narrative the cause<o:p></o:p>
and whether the crew tried to regain the<o:p></o:p>
path.<o:p></o:p>
4<o:p></o:p>
Approach flown?<o:p></o:p>
(Check one)<o:p></o:p>
Visual<o:p></o:p>
X<o:p></o:p>
Instrument backup on<o:p></o:p>
visual approach?<o:p></o:p>
(Check One)<o:p></o:p>
Yes X<o:p></o:p>
No<o:p></o:p>
Precision Type of precision<o:p></o:p>
approach<o:p></o:p>
Nonprecision Type of nonprecision<o:p></o:p>
approach<o:p></o:p>
5 Approach: Hand flown or Automation flown? Hand-flown<o:p></o:p>
6<o:p></o:p>
Did the aircraft get significantly above/below a<o:p></o:p>
desirable descent path? (Yes / No) Yes<o:p></o:p>
If “Yes”, explain in the narrative the<o:p></o:p>
cause and whether the crew tried to<o:p></o:p>
regain the path.<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-14 19:00:18

页: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20

航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译's Archiver