Doc9803航线运行安全审计 - 第16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 19:00:28

A-6 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><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>
9<o:p></o:p>
Stabilized Approach Parameters 1500 AFE 1000 AFE 500 AFE<o:p></o:p>
Target airspeed between –5 and +15 Yes Yes Yes<o:p></o:p>
Vertical speed ≤ 1000 fpm Yes Yes Yes<o:p></o:p>
Engines spooled Yes Yes Yes<o:p></o:p>
Landing configuration<o:p></o:p>
(Final flaps / gear down) Yes Yes Yes<o:p></o:p>
On proper flight path (G/S and localizer) Yes Yes Yes<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-7<o:p></o:p>
Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at <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 19:00:38

Descent / Approach / Land – The Blue Box<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Narrative<o:p></o:p>
Think “blue box.” Describe significant events from the TOD to landing using the picture above to define<o:p></o:p>
landmarks. Talk about how the crew performed when confronted with threats and crew errors. Also, be<o:p></o:p>
sure to justify your behavioral ratings.<o:p></o:p>
Briefing to TOD – The CA and FO did a nice job with the approach brief, which was completed by<o:p></o:p>
the TOD. Much better than their takeoff brief. They expected runway <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="25" UnitName="l">25L</st1:chmetcnv> from the Civet Arrival<o:p></o:p>
for a straight-in visual approach. Jepp charts were out, contingencies talked about, and everything<o:p></o:p>
was by the book. The FO asked a lot of questions and the CA was patient and helpful. Nicely done!<o:p></o:p>
<st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="10000" UnitName="’">10000’</st1:chmetcnv> to slowing and configuring – ATC cleared the crew to <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="25" UnitName="l">25L</st1:chmetcnv>, but at <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="8000" UnitName="’">8000’</st1:chmetcnv>, ATC changed us to<o:p></o:p>
the Mitts Arrival for runway 24R due to a slow moving A/C on <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="25" UnitName="l">25L</st1:chmetcnv>. The CA changed the arrival<o:p></o:p>
and approach in the FMC and tuned the radios. As soon as everything was clean, ATC called back<o:p></o:p>
and told the crew they could either land on <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="25" UnitName="l">25L</st1:chmetcnv> or 24R at their discretion. Since time was a factor,<o:p></o:p>
the crew discussed and decided to stick with the approach into 24R. The crew was flexible and<o:p></o:p>
the CA did a nice job assigning workload. He directed the FO fly the plane while he checked<o:p></o:p>
everything over one more time.<o:p></o:p>
The crew was also better monitors and cross checkers. However, their execution of checklists was<o:p></o:p>
still a little sloppy – late and rushed.<o:p></o:p>
The crew did a nice job staying vigilant with heavy traffic in the area – used ATC and TCAS<o:p></o:p>
effectively.<o:p></o:p>
Bottom lines to Flare / Touchdown – The approach was stable, but the FO let the airplane slip left,<o:p></o:p>
which resulted in landing left of centerline. Since the FO was new to this aircraft (1 month flying<o:p></o:p>
time), the observer chalked it up to a lack of stick and rudder proficiency.<o:p></o:p>
Taxi-in – The crew did a great job navigating taxiways and crossing the active <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" TCSC="0" NumberType="1" Negative="False" HasSpace="False" SourceValue="24" UnitName="l">24L</st1:chmetcnv> runway. Good<o:p></o:p>
vigilance and teamwork.<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:04:10

􀀴<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Briefing TOD<o:p></o:p>
Transition<o:p></o:p>
Altitude<o:p></o:p>
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="ft" SourceValue="10000" HasSpace="True" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">10000 ft</st1:chmetcnv>.<o:p></o:p>
Slow and configure<o:p></o:p>
FAF/OM Stabilized approach<o:p></o:p>
bottom lines<o:p></o:p>
Flare/Touchdown<o:p></o:p>
SAMPLE<o:p></o:p>
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY<o:p></o:p>
A-8 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)<o:p></o:p>
Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Austin</st1:City></st1:place>. All rights reserved.<o:p></o:p>
Descent / Approach / Land<o:p></o:p>
1 2 3 4<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>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:04:22

Planning Behavioral Markers Rating<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
SOP BRIEFING The required briefing was interactive<o:p></o:p>
and operationally thorough<o:p></o:p>
— Concise, not rushed, and met SOP<o:p></o:p>
requirements<o:p></o:p>
— Bottom lines were established<o:p></o:p>
4<o:p></o:p>
PLANS STATED Operational plans and decisions were<o:p></o:p>
communicated and acknowledged<o:p></o:p>
— Shared understanding about plans —<o:p></o:p>
“Everybody on the same page” 4<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:04:36

WORKLOAD<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
ASSIGNMENT<o:p></o:p>
Roles and responsibilities were defined<o:p></o:p>
for normal and non-normal situations<o:p></o:p>
— Workload assignments were<o:p></o:p>
communicated and acknowledged 4<o:p></o:p>
CONTINGENCY<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>
3<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 2<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:04:47

WORKLOAD<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><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 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>
3<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:04:57

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>
4<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 2010-4-15 09:05:07

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>
Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-9<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>
Overall Flight<o:p></o:p>
Narrative This narrative should include your overall impressions of the crew.<o:p></o:p>
Overall, the crew did a marginal job with planning and review/modify plans during predeparture.<o:p></o:p>
However, during the descent/approach/land phase, it was excellent. Their execution behaviors were<o:p></o:p>
marginal to good for the entire flight.<o:p></o:p>
While the takeoff brief was marginal, the CA made an outstanding approach brief. Open communication<o:p></o:p>
was not a problem. Good flow of information when the flight’s complexity increased with the<o:p></o:p>
late runway change. They really stepped it up.<o:p></o:p>
The big knock against this crew involved checklists, cross verifications, and all monitoring in general.<o:p></o:p>
They were a little too complacent during low workload periods (e.g., No altitude verifications during<o:p></o:p>
climb). The CA set a poor example in this regard.<o:p></o:p>
During predeparture, the CA introduced an unnecessary element of being rushed, which compromised<o:p></o:p>
workload management. However, his decisiveness and coordination in the descent/approach/land<o:p></o:p>
phase kept his leadership from being marked “marginal.”<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:05:16

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>
Overall Behavioral Markers Rating<o:p></o:p>
COMMUNICATION<o:p></o:p>
ENVIRONMENT<o:p></o:p>
Environment for open communication was<o:p></o:p>
established and maintained<o:p></o:p>
- Good cross talk – flow of information<o:p></o:p>
was fluid, clear, and direct 4<o:p></o:p>
LEADERSHIP Captain showed leadership and<o:p></o:p>
coordinated flight deck activities<o:p></o:p>
- In command, decisive, and<o:p></o:p>
encouraged crew participation 3<o:p></o:p>

航空发表于 2010-4-15 09:05:31

Did you observe a flight attendant briefing on the<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
first leg of the pairing? (Check one)<o:p></o:p>
Yes Rating<o:p></o:p>
No<o:p></o:p>
No opportunity to<o:p></o:p>
observe X<o:p></o:p>
CA FO<o:p></o:p>
Contribution to Crew Effectiveness 2 3<o:p></o:p>
Overall Crew Effectiveness<o:p></o:p>
Rating<o:p></o:p>
3<o:p></o:p>
SAMPLE<o:p></o:p>
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY<o:p></o:p>
A-10 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>
Threat Management Worksheet<o:p></o:p>
Threats — Events or errors that originate outside the influence of the flightcrew but require<o:p></o:p>
active crew management to maintain safety<o:p></o:p>
Threat ID<o:p></o:p>
Threat Description Threat Management<o:p></o:p>
Describe the threat Threat<o:p></o:p>
Code<o:p></o:p>
Phase of flight<o:p></o:p>
1 Predepart/Taxi<o:p></o:p>
2 Takeoff/Climb<o:p></o:p>
3 Cruise<o:p></o:p>
4 Des/App/Land<o:p></o:p>
5 Taxi-in<o:p></o:p>
Effectively<o:p></o:p>
managed?<o:p></o:p>
(Yes / No)<o:p></o:p>

页: 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