曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專(zhuān)營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

complete readback of the clearance. Double-clicks by a pilot
or controller have no place in aviation.
A substantial number of ASRS communications-related
reports involve readback/hearback problems. Many of
these incidents could be prevented if reporters followed
prescribed radio contact techniques. Section 4-2-3 of the
Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), and section
2-4-3 of the Controllers Handbook (FAA Order 7110.65)
cover correct radio communications phraseology and
Clearance
“Red Flags”
In the following incident, an air
carrier crew fell victim to a clearance
misunderstanding, but realized after
the event that they had missed
several “red flags” that might have
led them to question the clearance:

While taxiing for takeoff, XYZ Radio gave us a
clearance as follows: “Cleared via the radials of [jet route],
climb and maintain 3-3 thousand, expect FL350 5 minutes
after departure.” I read back, “…cleared via the radials of
[jet route], climb and maintain FL330, expect FL350 5
minutes after departure.” Radio came back and said,
“Correct, except expect FL350 3 minutes after departure.”
After departure Center gave us a heading of 165°.
Through about 10,000 feet, they asked us what altitude we
were given. We responded FL330. They said no, it was to
climb to 3,000 feet. They said no problem, continue climb
to FL 350.
Both Radio and Center missed our readbacks of FL330.
Because we were in a rush, we missed the “red flags” of
the clearance – “cleared via the radials” and “3-3
thousand.” Cleared via the radials would indicate it was
an altitude lower than 18,000 feet, and 3-3 thousand is
non-standard terminology [for 3,000 feet].
I think the lesson is to pay closer attention to the clearance.
Question anything that is not clear, and don’t rely on the
readback to catch any errors.
From F/A to PA
Those who enjoy aviation humor know that a number
of airline jokes feature the bungled or embarrassing
Passenger Announcement (PA). A variant is the
cockpit call to the Flight Attendant (F/A) that becomes
an unintended PA. More from this recent ASRS
report:

We were flying ABC-XYZ. Earlier, during crew
introductions / briefing a Flight Attendant mentioned
that she lived south of ABC airport. I mentioned we
would pass over her neighborhood on departure and we
would ring the F/A call button when over that spot
(about 20 nm south of airport).
We did so and due to confusion, I mentioned on the
(what I thought was crew interphone but was actually a
PA to passengers), “we’re over your house now.” We
were below 10,000 feet when this occurred.
techniques for pilots and controllers, respectively.
Neither reference endorses microphone clicks as an
appropriate response technique.
“Ever Stop to Think, and Forget to Start Again?” – Bumper Sticker
It doesn’t get much better than this: there was a recent
event involving human error, and you weren’t the
hapless human involved. CALLBACK, a
publication devoted to preventing human error,
made a mistake.
In our January 2001 issue (#257), we published
an article titled “Code A/ Alert” that featured a
report from a general aviation pilot who had filed an
IFR flight plan with the equipment notation Code /A. The
pilot requested radar vectors for a route short-cut. The
Center controller asked whether the aircraft was equipped
with GPS, and the pilot replied “VFR GPS.” The pilot was
then handed over to another Center controller who rerouted
him to a distant VOR fix. Here’s what happened next, in the
pilot’s words…

All was going well until we were handed over to Approach,
who complained that we were filed equipment /A but were
flying to a distant fix on GPS navigation. He said I should
have refused the unsolicited rerouting by Center. I remain
confused, as it’s my understanding that using any GPS as an
adjunct to flying an assigned radar vector to a fix is legal…
We said that the reporter had erred twice – in requesting a
route short-cut using VFR-certified GPS on an IFR flight
plan; and in accepting the Center controller’s reroute to the
distant fix.
We were wrong on both counts, as we subsequently heard
from many of you and the FAA sources we consulted:
(1) There is nothing in the FARs that prevents a pilot from
requesting, or a controller from granting, a radar vector
routing to any fix, as long as the pilot complies with altitude
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 1(170)