Number 209
November 1996
Safety Issues in International Operations
Last year’s fatal accident near Cali, Colombia has heightened awareness of safety issues associated with U.S. air carrier flights in foreign airspace. Although language problems might be expected to be a key factor in foreign airspace incidents, a recent analysis of foreign airspace operational incidents reported to the ASRS revealed that the largest percentage—40%—was attributed to pilot errors. These errors included loss of situational awareness, confusion, flight crew complacency, and breakdown of CRM—the same types of errors that occur in U.S. airspace. Another 25% of the reports cited a language problem as a primary cause of the incidents, while 20% were related to aircraft or ATC navigation or communication equipment problems. A Second Officer’s report illustrates the situational awareness and crew communication problems identified in many of the foreign airspace incidents analyzed by ASRS:
s After departing [a foreign airport], I noticed a discussion
between the pilots about being unable to contact ATC due to frequency congestion to obtain a higher altitude. We were on an IFR flight plan in VMC conditions. We had just crossed XYZ intersection at FL120. We continued west, on course into mountainous terrain, 6,000 feet below the minimum crossing altitude of FL180. We were 14 miles west of XYZ intersection before we received an urgent clearance from ATC to climb to FL260. We were flying through valleys into rising terrain and with terrain above our aircraft. I examined the pilot’s departure page and realized how low we really were on the departure profile. A new-hire Captain was flying left seat. A check Captain was flying in the right seat working the radios. No comments were made by either pilot as to why we proceeded west of XYZ so far below the minimum crossing altitude.
Lost in the Translation
The language-related problems cited by ASRS reporters in foreign airspace operations include unfamiliar controller phraseology, a controller’s unclear English or heavy accent, and readback/hearback issues. A Captain’s report of a near runway incursion provides a glimpse of the language barrier sometimes experienced: Other pilot recommendations for dealing with language problems include: Speak very slowly; this often results in the controllers slowing down their rate of speech also, making the instructions more readily understood. Anticipate that the controller may pronounce the fix or identifier differently than you expected to hear it or than you would pronounce it yourself. Although the language being used on the radio may be the native language of that country, the use of any language other than English can leave many pilots out of the communications loop. A number of reporters cited this as lack of a “partyline.” Our next reporter explains how this problem can impact safety:
s During taxi, Tower issued instructions in a very heavy
[European] accent that sounded like, “Cleared into position and wait.” The First Officer, employing a phraseology that is common in the U.S., asked in a very clear and enunciated fashion, “Did you clear us into position and hold?” The Tower’s answer was “Yes.” I proceeded beyond the ILS [critical area] hold line. The Tower shouted, “Stop!” We spotted an airliner breaking out of the clouds. Although we never penetrated the area of the runway, the sudden stop, the proximity to the runway, and the sight and sound of the landing aircraft scared all of us. It is clear that we misunderstood each other. In all probability, he said, “Cleared to the hold line and wait.” Perhaps if we had asked him, “Do you want us to go on the runway?” he would have responded with a strong “No!” The reporter realized after the fact that the crew either misheard or misinterpreted the Controller’s clearance. Regardless, the reporter’s suggestion is a good one: seek clarification by rephrasing the clearance in plain, simple words, different from those used by the controller. Although some foreign controllers may not have a broad command of English, they often will understand the crew’s restated questions and be able to provide clarification.
s On approach to [a foreign airport] , we were cleared for the
ILS. When we first checked in with Tower, we were told to continue…then cleared to land. At 700 feet AGL, we noticed foreign Aircraft B taxiing onto the extended threshold for the runway. At 400 feet, the Tower told us to go-around. We were vectored back for the ILS…and made a normal landing. Factors: we did not know if the other aircraft was cleared into position or for takeoff because…the Tower and Aircraft B’s aircrew were using a foreign language. Had they been using English, we would have heard any conflicting clearance given to Aircraft B. If pilots think there may be other aircraft in their immediate vicinity, they need to query the controller for information or clarification. August 1996 Report Intake
Air Carrier Pilots General Aviation Pilots Controllers Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other 2178 831 177 49
ASRS Recently Issued Alerts On...
Undetected generator failure on a B-747 Failure of a radar control indicator at a Texas TRACON A hydraulic fluid leak into a B-757 engine pylon A traffic conflict with hang gliders on a California arrival A potential stall on approach attributed to a false GPWS
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from The Office of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, P.O. Box 189, Moffett Field, CA 94035-0189
TOTAL
3235
飞行翻译公司 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：美国ASRS安全公告CALLBACK cb_209.pdf
November 1996
Safety Issues in International Operations
Last year’s fatal accident near Cali, Colombia has heightened awareness of safety issues associated with U.S. air carrier flights in foreign airspace. Although language problems might be expected to be a key factor in foreign airspace incidents, a recent analysis of foreign airspace operational incidents reported to the ASRS revealed that the largest percentage—40%—was attributed to pilot errors. These errors included loss of situational awareness, confusion, flight crew complacency, and breakdown of CRM—the same types of errors that occur in U.S. airspace. Another 25% of the reports cited a language problem as a primary cause of the incidents, while 20% were related to aircraft or ATC navigation or communication equipment problems. A Second Officer’s report illustrates the situational awareness and crew communication problems identified in many of the foreign airspace incidents analyzed by ASRS:
s After departing [a foreign airport], I noticed a discussion
between the pilots about being unable to contact ATC due to frequency congestion to obtain a higher altitude. We were on an IFR flight plan in VMC conditions. We had just crossed XYZ intersection at FL120. We continued west, on course into mountainous terrain, 6,000 feet below the minimum crossing altitude of FL180. We were 14 miles west of XYZ intersection before we received an urgent clearance from ATC to climb to FL260. We were flying through valleys into rising terrain and with terrain above our aircraft. I examined the pilot’s departure page and realized how low we really were on the departure profile. A new-hire Captain was flying left seat. A check Captain was flying in the right seat working the radios. No comments were made by either pilot as to why we proceeded west of XYZ so far below the minimum crossing altitude.
Lost in the Translation
The language-related problems cited by ASRS reporters in foreign airspace operations include unfamiliar controller phraseology, a controller’s unclear English or heavy accent, and readback/hearback issues. A Captain’s report of a near runway incursion provides a glimpse of the language barrier sometimes experienced: Other pilot recommendations for dealing with language problems include: Speak very slowly; this often results in the controllers slowing down their rate of speech also, making the instructions more readily understood. Anticipate that the controller may pronounce the fix or identifier differently than you expected to hear it or than you would pronounce it yourself. Although the language being used on the radio may be the native language of that country, the use of any language other than English can leave many pilots out of the communications loop. A number of reporters cited this as lack of a “partyline.” Our next reporter explains how this problem can impact safety:
s During taxi, Tower issued instructions in a very heavy
[European] accent that sounded like, “Cleared into position and wait.” The First Officer, employing a phraseology that is common in the U.S., asked in a very clear and enunciated fashion, “Did you clear us into position and hold?” The Tower’s answer was “Yes.” I proceeded beyond the ILS [critical area] hold line. The Tower shouted, “Stop!” We spotted an airliner breaking out of the clouds. Although we never penetrated the area of the runway, the sudden stop, the proximity to the runway, and the sight and sound of the landing aircraft scared all of us. It is clear that we misunderstood each other. In all probability, he said, “Cleared to the hold line and wait.” Perhaps if we had asked him, “Do you want us to go on the runway?” he would have responded with a strong “No!” The reporter realized after the fact that the crew either misheard or misinterpreted the Controller’s clearance. Regardless, the reporter’s suggestion is a good one: seek clarification by rephrasing the clearance in plain, simple words, different from those used by the controller. Although some foreign controllers may not have a broad command of English, they often will understand the crew’s restated questions and be able to provide clarification.
s On approach to [a foreign airport] , we were cleared for the
ILS. When we first checked in with Tower, we were told to continue…then cleared to land. At 700 feet AGL, we noticed foreign Aircraft B taxiing onto the extended threshold for the runway. At 400 feet, the Tower told us to go-around. We were vectored back for the ILS…and made a normal landing. Factors: we did not know if the other aircraft was cleared into position or for takeoff because…the Tower and Aircraft B’s aircrew were using a foreign language. Had they been using English, we would have heard any conflicting clearance given to Aircraft B. If pilots think there may be other aircraft in their immediate vicinity, they need to query the controller for information or clarification. August 1996 Report Intake
Air Carrier Pilots General Aviation Pilots Controllers Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other 2178 831 177 49
ASRS Recently Issued Alerts On...
Undetected generator failure on a B-747 Failure of a radar control indicator at a Texas TRACON A hydraulic fluid leak into a B-757 engine pylon A traffic conflict with hang gliders on a California arrival A potential stall on approach attributed to a false GPWS
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from The Office of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, P.O. Box 189, Moffett Field, CA 94035-0189
TOTAL
3235
飞行翻译公司 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：美国ASRS安全公告CALLBACK cb_209.pdf
自定义标签： 
