曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

n There is a company check airman on the line who
is proposing a great idea. That is, when the clearance
briefing is made, the First Officer (or Captain) should call
up the PDC screen and both pilots should simultaneously
review it. That will give the redundancy we need to be able
to catch routing or other errors....
Unclear Routing Formats
Some PDC route revisions are depicted only by a small
dash (“-“) before and after the revision. The original filed
route is printed on a separate line immediately below the
revised clearance. The formatting of revised vs. filed routes
is so subtle that revisions are sometimes missed even by
vigilant pilots.
Number 352 April 2009
what the revised and filed clearances looked like to the
flight crew:
******** REVISED SEGMENT ********
-SOLDO2 MEI-
******** FILED CLEARANCE ********
DFW SOLDO2 ELD MEI J4 MGM
DBN
The flight crew interpreted MEI- in the revised segment as
“direct from SOLDO intersection to Meridian VOR.” They
were supposed to fly the Meridian Transition (the original
filed route for aircraft inbound to the Atlanta area).
Note that the revised segment of the PDC lacks a clear
identifier for a Transition. The flight crew’s interpretation
error led to a track deviation that put them in the path of
departures coming out of Atlanta.
A B-737 Captain offered this emphatic comment:
n Stop PDC’s from giving amendments to fixes along the
filed route of flight on the release. Amendments should
only occur if there is in fact a change of routing...At
best, it causes confusion and delays by having to confirm
the exact fix the reroute takes you, only to find out it’s part
of the jetway. At worst, you deviate off course. (#786189)
Summary of PDC Format Suggestions
The 71 ASRS reporters who provided recent feedback on
PDC’s made the following suggestions for improvement to
PDC formats.
• Include only the cleared route on a PDC. Displaying
both the filed and cleared routes presents a two-route
choice that can result in FMC programming errors and
track deviations.
• Make PDC revisions more visible by labeling them
(“REVISED ROUTING”) or showing revisions with
asterisks (*****) or other eye-catching notation. If the
filed route is displayed, do not put it directly below the
revised route.
• Discontinue the ATC practice of amending the filed
route of flight with fixes that do not represent an actual
change of routing. It is time-consuming for pilots to
verify that a routing “revision” does not change the filed
route of flight. In some cases, pilot confusion may result
in track deviations and loss of separation events.
352
An air carrier First Officer provided an example of how a
routing revision looks:
n PDC clearance is a very good thing, but when there is a
difference in the filed route and a [revised] route...instead
of just a line (-SEA.J90.MWH-), maybe make a more
distinct annotation and do not have the filed route directly
next to (below) the ‘reroute.’
An air carrier First Officer called for the use of words,
rather than symbols, to indicate a revised routing:
n ...Replace the [amendment] dashes with other
phraseology such as ‘Reroute’...
Unnecessary Route Revisions (Amendments)
A pet peeve of some ASRS reporters is PDC’s that contain
apparent route revisions (amendments), when the
amendment doesn’t actually change the filed routing.
We included an example of this in the March 2009
CALLBACK (“Clearance Clarity”). Here is an excerpt from
that report:
n ...I have many times encountered an ATC clearance
problem that just simply does not have to exist. We are
often given a clearance that reads something like, ‘You
are cleared direct ABCDE intersection, direct FGHIJ
intersection, XXX VOR 123 degree radial to KLMNO
intersection, then flight plan route.’...We are forced to dig
out charts that we might not normally have out, then try to
find the VOR in question and trace out the radial, only to
find that the given radial is a direct route from FGHIJ to
KLMNO. If we have the equipment to proceed direct to the
first two intersections, we obviously have the equipment to
proceed directly to the third. Why not just give us direct to
all three? Why confuse the issue by throwing in a VOR and
radial, when both are completely unnecessary and serve
only to create confusion?
A B737 Captain echoed this observation:
n Revised segments [amendments] on clearances are
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 3(61)