Doc9803航线运行安全审计

航空

Step 5: Schedule audit dates, select observers and schedulefficeffice" />

training dates

Depending on the size of an airline’s operations, a LOSA

may last anywhere from approximately three to eight weeks.

The LOSA observations should not be spread out over an

extremely long time period. The objective is to gather the

data needed to examine a specific area of operations. If the

observations take place over a long time, it is likely that the

effort will become diluted.

The quality of data collected depends entirely on who is

collecting that data, so selecting LOSA observers is

something that should be carefully considered. A good

LOSA observer is one who is familiar with the airline’s

procedures and operations. Observers should be able to

occupy the cockpit jump-seat and capture data but should

not be obtrusive and overbearing.

航空

Step 6: Conduct observer trainingfficeffice" />

LOSA observer training will typically take two days. During

this time, LOSA observers should have the opportunity to

complete LOSA rating forms using training examples. Also,

once the line audit has begun, it is a good idea to periodically

provide feedback to LOSA observers to reinforce the things

that they do well and to coach them in the areas that require

improvement.

4.5 THE KEYS TO AN EFFECTIVE LOSA

ffice:smarttags" />4.5.1 If a LOSA is properly conducted, an airline will

be able to obtain a multitude of information about threats

and errors that flight crews face in daily operations. In

US Airways experience, there are two key elements that

will determine the quality of data obtained: the airline’s

views on confidentiality and no-jeopardy, and the observers

themselves.

航空

Confidentiality and no-jeopardyfficeffice" />

ffice:smarttags" />4.5.2 It is human nature for people to behave

somewhat differently when they know they are being

evaluated, and airlines have a lot of information on how

flight crews perform in the simulator and line checks. The

idea of a LOSA is to capture data about the flight operations

that could not be obtained otherwise.

4.5.3 To facilitate being able to observe the natural

behaviour of crews, airlines must promote LOSA as nojeopardy.

The notion is that data from LOSA observations

will not be used to discipline a pilot. For example, if a LOSA

observer sees a crew unintentionally deviate from their

assigned altitude, the observer will not use that information

in a manner that could be punitive to that crew.

Chapter 4. How to set up a LOSA — US Airways experience 4-5

4.5.4 Some airlines are not as comfortable with the

notion of no-jeopardy. At a minimum, in order to do a

LOSA, an airline should agree that LOSA flight data are

confidential and de-identified. The LOSA forms must not

contain information that could be traced to a specific flight

or crew.

航空

ffice:smarttags" />4.5.5 This is not to say that the overall results from anfficeffice" />

airline’s LOSA programme should not be publicized. In fact,

once the entire LOSA programme is completed, the airline

is encouraged to share the findings with their pilots.

However, under no circumstances should the results from a

particular flight be divulged or a crew disciplined for

mistakes that occur on a LOSA flight.

航空

The role of the observerfficeffice" />

ffice:smarttags" />4.5.6 As cited above, the LOSA observer plays a key

role in the effectiveness of a LOSA. If observers are seen

as threats to the career of the pilots being observed, then the

pilots may act differently than if the observers were

perceived as simply being there to collect data to help

improve the airline.

航空

ffice:smarttags" />4.5.7 Some airlines use the analogy that the LOSAfficeffice" />

observer should be like a “fly on the wall”, meaning that the

observer will not interfere with the crew’s performance.

Observers should create an environment where the crews

hardly realize that they are being observed. It is imperative

that crews do not feel as if they are being given a check-ride.

If an airline uses check airmen and instructors as LOSA

observers, those observers must make a conscious effort to

step out of their typical roles as evaluators. The LOSA

observers must clearly understand that their role is limited

to collecting data, not to disciplining or critiquing crews.

航空

4.6 PROMOTING LOSA FORfficeffice" />

FLIGHT CREWS

Before an airline begins a LOSA, it is highly recommended

that the LOSA be widely publicized. Articles in the

company’s safety publication can go a long way towards

improving line pilot acceptance of a LOSA. There is one

way of publicizing a LOSA that must not be overlooked and

that is a letter that is jointly signed by the company

management and union officials. See Appendix B for an

example.

航空

Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at ffice:smarttags" />Austin. All rights reserved. A-1fficeffice" />

Appendix A

EXAMPLES OF THE VARIOUS FORMS UTILIZED BY LOSA

LOSA Observation Form — EXAMPLE

Observer Information

Flight Demographics

Crew Demographics

Observer ID (Employee number) 3059

Observation Number #1

Crew Observation Number

(e.g., “1 of 2” indicates segment one for a crew that you observed across two segments) 1 Of 1

City Pairs (e.g., PIT-CLT) PIT - LAX

A/C Type (e.g., 737-300) B-757

Pilot flying (Check one) CA FO X

Time from Pushback to Gate Arrival (Hours:Minutes) 4:55

Late Departure?

(Yes or No) Yes How late?

(Hours:Minutes)

CA FO SO/FE Relief 1 Relief 2

Base PIT PIT

Years experience for all airlines 35 5

Years in position for this A/C 7 1 month

Years in automated A/C

(FMC with VNAV and LNAV) 12 1 month

Crew Familiarity

(Check one)

First LEG the crew has EVER flown together

First DAY the crew has EVER flown together

Crew has flown together before X

航空

SAMPLEfficeffice" />

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

A-2 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)

Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at ffice:smarttags" />Austin. All rights reserved.

Predeparture / Taxi-Out

Narrative

Your narrative should provide a context. What did the crew do well? What did the crew do poorly? How

did the crew perform when confronted with threats, crew errors, and significant events? Also, be sure to

justify your behavioral ratings.

The CA established a great team climate – positive with open communication. However, he seemed

to be in a rush and not very detail oriented. The FO, who was relatively new to the A/C, tried to

keep up but fell behind at times. The CA did not help the cause by interrupting the FO with casual

conversation (“marginal” workload management).

All checklists were rushed and poorly executed. The CA was also lax verifying paperwork. This

sub-par behavior contributed to an undetected error - the FO failed to set his airspeed bugs for

T/O (“poor” monitor/cross-check). The Before Takeoff Checklist should have caught the error, but

the crew unintentionally skipped over that item. During the takeoff roll, the FO noticed the error

and said, “Missed that one.”

The Captain’s brief was interactive but not very thorough (“marginal” SOP briefing). He failed to

note the closure of the final 2000’ of their departing runway (28R) due to construction. Taxiways

B7 and B8 at the end of the runway were also out. The crew was marked “poor” in contingency

management because there were no plans in place on how to deal with this threat in the case of a

rejected takeoff. Lucky it was a long runway.

1 2 3 4

航空

Poorfficeffice" />

Observed performance

had safety implications

Marginal

Observed performance

was barely adequate

Good

Observed performance

was effective

Outstanding

Observed performance

was truly noteworthy

Planning Behavioral Markers Rating

SOP BRIEFING The required briefing was interactive

and operationally thorough

— Concise, not rushed, and met SOP

requirements

— Bottom lines were established

2

PLANS STATED Operational plans and decisions were

communicated and acknowledged

— Shared understanding about plans —

“Everybody on the same page” 3

WORKLOAD

ASSIGNMENT

Roles and responsibilities were defined

for normal and non-normal situations

— Workload assignments were

communicated and acknowledged 3