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

other safety concerns cited by reporters.
As shown in Figure 1, Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX), with 110 ICAC incidents, ranked as the top
airport reported. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
(DFW) ranked as the second airport with 31 incidents,
and McCarran International Airport (LAS) was third
with 19 reported incidents. NOTE: Various factors,
including traffic volume, airport runway configuration,
airspace structure, etc., will affect the reporting volume
of ICAC events to ASRS and may not be directly related
to actual rates of occurrence in the National Airspace
System. Therefore, it cannot be assumed from the ASRS
information that LAX is the worst location for these events
but are rather pointing towards a broader issue of ICAC
incidents in general at complex airports.
Figure 1. Airports Described in ICAC Events Reported
LAX Airport 110
DFW Airport 31
LAS Airport 19
SFO Airport 14
DEN Airport 12
A typical ICAC event involves a late or changed runway
assignment that may require a flight crew to make multiple
changes to the autoflight system within a short period of
time, often resulting in increased workload and potential
data entry errors. Some examples of ICAC events from the
ASRS data review highlight some safety issues involved.
ICAC Event Specifics
A report from a Falcon 20 Captain describes a flight crew
“guessing game” as to which runway to program into the
FMS [Flight Management System] for an arrival into LAX:
■ ...Our ATC clearance was to descend via the CIVET
arrival. ATC had not yet assigned a runway, and to load
this procedure into the FMS a runway selection is required.
We loaded the arrival and Runway 25R since this was
the preferred runway and I had been to LAX several days
earlier and this was the runway we used then. Nearing
CIVET intersection, ATC informed us we would be landing
Runway 24R. I instructed the First Officer to change the
runway selection in the FMS to Runway 24R. He made
the change and advised me so. Within about one minute,
I began to verify the altitude restrictions on the arrival
chart and check them in the FMS. I immediately noticed
that while the runway and approach had been changed,
the arrival transition between CIVET and the Runway 24R
were not correct in the FMS. The transition to the Runway
25R approach was still loaded even though the Runway
24R approach was now part of the active flight plan. At
about the same time, ATC stated that it looked like we
were heading for Runway 25R and questioned us...While
we were correcting the issue in the FMS, ATC assigned a
vector to intercept the Runway 24R localizer....
While we as a crew made several mistakes during this
event, there are...other areas that led to this occurrence:
ATC seems to assign a runway change at a late stage on
this arrival...The FMS will not allow you to load this
arrival from the database unless you select a runway first
(ZLA [Los Angeles Center] will not assign a runway, but
will clear you to descend via the arrival, so you have to
select a runway). This can lead to a situation like the above
if you guess wrong. The runway assignments are handled
by SOCAL [Southern California TRACON]). Reasonable
advance notice will greatly reduce the possibility of
something like this happening....
A late runway change at Orlando International airport
(MCO) resulted in a flight crew’s failure to meet a crossing
restriction.
■ MCO Approach issued ‘cleared for the Visual Approach
Runway 17L cross FONIK at or above 3,000 feet.’ Our
position to my knowledge was south of FONIK and just
north of SEEDO intersections. As the PNF [Pilot not Flying]
I set 2,500 feet in the altitude window (as per the ILS
crossing altitude at SEEDO). Approach Control reminded
us to cross north of FONIK above 3,000 feet. I told the First
Officer to give it to him (i.e., climb back to 3,000 feet). Upon
reaching 3,000 feet and descending on the glideslope south
of FONIK, we commenced descent from 3,000 feet. We were
switched to MCO Tower and were given landing clearance
and were told to call Approach Control via phone upon block
in....Upon block in, I returned the call to MCO Approach and
was told the tapes were unintelligible and not to worry about
it. Conclusion: it was a last-minute runway switch from
the West complex to the East complex with very congested
radio traffic. I assumed we were in compliance with the
ATC constraint and realized it was not so. Combined
with the above facts, it was a task saturated environment.
Maintaining situational awareness while accomplishing
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 3(16)