Doc9803航线运行安全审计

航空

CONTINGENCYfficeffice" />

MANAGEMENT

Crew members developed effective

strategies to manage threats to safety

— Threats and their consequences were

anticipated

— Used all available resources to

manage threats

1

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-3

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

Execution Behavioral Markers Rating

MONITOR / CROSSCHECK

Crew members actively monitored and

cross-checked systems and other crew

members

— Aircraft position, settings, and crew

actions were verified 1

WORKLOAD

MANAGEMENT

Operational tasks were prioritized and

properly managed to handle primary

flight duties

— Avoided task fixation

— Did not allow work overload 2

航空

VIGILANCE Crew members remained alert of thefficeffice" />

environment and position of the aircraft

— Crew members maintained situational

awareness 3

AUTOMATION

MANAGEMENT

Automation was properly managed to

balance situational and/or workload

requirements

— Automation setup was briefed to other

members

— Effective recovery techniques from

automation anomalies

航空

Review / Modify Behavioral Markers Ratingfficeffice" />

EVALUATION OF

PLANS

Existing plans were reviewed and

modified when necessary

— Crew decisions and actions were

openly analyzed to make sure the

existing plan was the best plan

INQUIRY Crew members asked questions to

investigate and/or clarify current plans

of action

— Crew members not afraid to express a

lack of knowledge - “Nothing taken for

granted” attitude

3

航空

ASSERTIVENESS Crew members stated criticalfficeffice" />

information and/or solutions with

appropriate persistence

— Crew members spoke up without

hesitation

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

A-4 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)

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

航空

Takeoff / Climbfficeffice" />

Cruise

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.

Normal takeoff besides one error. As the crew started to clean up the aircraft, the FO called

“flaps up” before the flap retraction speed. The CA trapped the error and did not retract the flaps

until the proper speed.

After passing ffice:smarttags" />10000’ all the way up to the TOC, the CA and FO failed to cross-verify multiple altitude

changes. There was no intention on part of the CA to verify. In addition, since it happened multiple

times, the observer coded it as an intentional noncompliance.

航空

1 2 3 4fficeffice" />

Poor

Observed performance had

safety implications

Marginal

Observed performance was

barely adequate

Good

Observed performance was

effective

Outstanding

Observed performance was

truly noteworthy

Execution Behavioral Markers Rating

MONITOR /CROSSCHECK

Crew members actively monitored and

cross-checked systems and other crew

members

— Aircraft position, settings, and crew

actions were verified 1

WORKLOAD

MANAGEMENT

Operational tasks were prioritized and

properly managed to handle primary

flight duties

— Avoided task fixation

— Did not allow work overload 3

VIGILANCE Crew members remained alert of the

environment and position of the aircraft

— Crew members maintained situational

awareness 2

航空

AUTOMATIONfficeffice" />

MANAGEMENT

Automation was properly managed to

balance situational and/or workload

requirements

— Automation setup was briefed to other

members

— Effective recovery techniques from

automation anomalies

Review / Modify Behavioral Markers Rating

EVALUATION OF

PLANS

Existing plans were reviewed and

modified when necessary

— Crew decisions and actions were

openly analyzed to make sure the

existing plan was the best plan

INQUIRY Crew members asked questions to

investigate and/or clarify current plans

of action

— Crew members not afraid to express a

lack of knowledge — “Nothing taken

for granted” attitude

航空

ASSERTIVENESS Crew members stated criticalfficeffice" />

information and/or solutions with

appropriate persistence

— Crew members spoke up without

hesitation

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.

Routine – no comments

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-5

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

航空

Descent / Approach / Land Technical Worksheetfficeffice" />

Descent (Above ffice:smarttags" />10,000 ft.)

Approach and Land (Below 10,000 ft.)

1 Was the approach briefed before the TOD? (Yes / No) Yes

2 Did the crew begin the descent before or at the FMS TOD? (Yes / No) Yes

3 Did the aircraft get significantly above/below the FMS or standard

path? (Yes / No) No

If “Yes”, explain in the narrative the cause

and whether the crew tried to regain the

path.

4

Approach flown?

(Check one)

Visual

X

Instrument backup on

visual approach?

(Check One)

Yes X

No

Precision Type of precision

approach

Nonprecision Type of nonprecision

approach

5 Approach: Hand flown or Automation flown? Hand-flown

6

Did the aircraft get significantly above/below a

desirable descent path? (Yes / No) Yes

If “Yes”, explain in the narrative the

cause and whether the crew tried to

regain the path.

航空

7fficeffice" />

During flap extension, flaps were

“generally” extended:

(Check one)

Close to or at minimum maneuvering speed

Close to or at the maximum flap extension

speed X

Above maximum flap extension speed

(If this happens, be sure to describe in the

narrative)

8 Weather (Check One) VMC X IMC

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY