Doc9803航线运行安全审计

航空

A-6 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)fficeffice" />

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

9

Stabilized Approach Parameters 1500 AFE 1000 AFE 500 AFE

Target airspeed between –5 and +15 Yes Yes Yes

Vertical speed ≤ 1000 fpm Yes Yes Yes

Engines spooled Yes Yes Yes

Landing configuration

(Final flaps / gear down) Yes Yes Yes

On proper flight path (G/S and localizer) Yes Yes Yes

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-7

Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at Austin. All rights reserved.

航空

Descent / Approach / Land – The Blue Boxfficeffice" />

Narrative

Think “blue box.” Describe significant events from the TOD to landing using the picture above to define

landmarks. Talk about how the crew performed when confronted with threats and crew errors. Also, be

sure to justify your behavioral ratings.

Briefing to TOD – The CA and FO did a nice job with the approach brief, which was completed by

the TOD. Much better than their takeoff brief. They expected runway ffice:smarttags" />25L from the Civet Arrival

for a straight-in visual approach. Jepp charts were out, contingencies talked about, and everything

was by the book. The FO asked a lot of questions and the CA was patient and helpful. Nicely done!

10000’ to slowing and configuring – ATC cleared the crew to 25L, but at 8000’, ATC changed us to

the Mitts Arrival for runway 24R due to a slow moving A/C on 25L. The CA changed the arrival

and approach in the FMC and tuned the radios. As soon as everything was clean, ATC called back

and told the crew they could either land on 25L or 24R at their discretion. Since time was a factor,

the crew discussed and decided to stick with the approach into 24R. The crew was flexible and

the CA did a nice job assigning workload. He directed the FO fly the plane while he checked

everything over one more time.

The crew was also better monitors and cross checkers. However, their execution of checklists was

still a little sloppy – late and rushed.

The crew did a nice job staying vigilant with heavy traffic in the area – used ATC and TCAS

effectively.

Bottom lines to Flare / Touchdown – The approach was stable, but the FO let the airplane slip left,

which resulted in landing left of centerline. Since the FO was new to this aircraft (1 month flying

time), the observer chalked it up to a lack of stick and rudder proficiency.

Taxi-in – The crew did a great job navigating taxiways and crossing the active 24L runway. Good

vigilance and teamwork.

航空

􀀴fficeffice" />

Briefing TOD

Transition

Altitude

ffice:smarttags" />10000 ft.

Slow and configure

FAF/OM Stabilized approach

bottom lines

Flare/Touchdown

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

A-8 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)

Copyright  2002 The University of Texas at Austin. All rights reserved.

Descent / Approach / Land

1 2 3 4

Poor

Observed performance had

safety implications

Marginal

Observed performance was

barely adequate

Good

Observed performance was

effective

Outstanding

Observed performance was

truly noteworthy

航空

Planning Behavioral Markers Ratingfficeffice" />

SOP BRIEFING The required briefing was interactive

and operationally thorough

— Concise, not rushed, and met SOP

requirements

— Bottom lines were established

4

PLANS STATED Operational plans and decisions were

communicated and acknowledged

— Shared understanding about plans —

“Everybody on the same page” 4

航空

WORKLOADfficeffice" />

ASSIGNMENT

Roles and responsibilities were defined

for normal and non-normal situations

— Workload assignments were

communicated and acknowledged 4

CONTINGENCY

MANAGEMENT

Crew members developed effective

strategies to manage threats to safety

— Threats and their consequences were

anticipated

— Used all available resources to

manage threats

3

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 2

航空

WORKLOADfficeffice" />

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 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

3

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

4

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

Appendix A. Examples of the various forms utilized by LOSA A-9

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

Overall Flight

Narrative This narrative should include your overall impressions of the crew.

Overall, the crew did a marginal job with planning and review/modify plans during predeparture.

However, during the descent/approach/land phase, it was excellent. Their execution behaviors were

marginal to good for the entire flight.

While the takeoff brief was marginal, the CA made an outstanding approach brief. Open communication

was not a problem. Good flow of information when the flight’s complexity increased with the

late runway change. They really stepped it up.

The big knock against this crew involved checklists, cross verifications, and all monitoring in general.

They were a little too complacent during low workload periods (e.g., No altitude verifications during

climb). The CA set a poor example in this regard.

During predeparture, the CA introduced an unnecessary element of being rushed, which compromised

workload management. However, his decisiveness and coordination in the descent/approach/land

phase kept his leadership from being marked “marginal.”

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

Overall Behavioral Markers Rating

COMMUNICATION

ENVIRONMENT

Environment for open communication was

established and maintained

- Good cross talk – flow of information

was fluid, clear, and direct 4

LEADERSHIP Captain showed leadership and

coordinated flight deck activities

- In command, decisive, and

encouraged crew participation 3

航空

Did you observe a flight attendant briefing on thefficeffice" />

first leg of the pairing? (Check one)

Yes Rating

No

No opportunity to

observe X

CA FO

Contribution to Crew Effectiveness 2 3

Overall Crew Effectiveness

Rating

3

SAMPLE

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

A-10 Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)

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

Threat Management Worksheet

Threats — Events or errors that originate outside the influence of the flightcrew but require

active crew management to maintain safety

Threat ID

Threat Description Threat Management

Describe the threat Threat

Code

Phase of flight

1 Predepart/Taxi

2 Takeoff/Climb

3 Cruise

4 Des/App/Land

5 Taxi-in

Effectively

managed?

(Yes / No)