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

to a fix, ATC always clears us for a straight-in approach. Lesson
learned is that always ask when in doubt.
This reporter’s advice brings us full circle to the AIM. The note
to section 5-4-9-a adds: “If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC
clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow
for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request
clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123).”
363
the approach, when I was about 10 nm away from the VOR. The
controller subsequently cleared me for the VOR Runway 34 approach
at DMW, and I proceeded to execute the hold-in-lieu-of-a-procedureturn
per the published procedure. While I was on the outbound leg
of the hold, the controller told me that he ‘did not clear me for the
procedure turn,’ and told me that he needed me to turn inbound right
away. I immediately complied, and completed the approach.
I believe I was executing the approach properly, per the guidance
stated in the AIM, but it was distracting and concerning when there
seems to be a disconnect between what I as the pilot believes should
be flown, and what the controller believes should be flown in terms
of the approach. In my limited experience flying IFR, there seems
to be a continued confusion between pilots and ATC regarding
whether or not the hold-in-lieu-of-a-procedure-turn should be flown.
This confusion is especially distracting to a pilot who must remain
focused on flying a non-precision approach in IMC....
The guidance is straightforward: If vectors are not being provided,
and you are cleared direct to the IAF, then fly the entire approach
as published.
ASRS called this pilot back to ask for more details. The pilot stated
that the Approach Controller was busy and reacted strongly when
the approach wasn’t flown straight in. The words “straight in”
were not part of the approach clearance. A local FAA designated
check airman later concurred with this pilot’s understanding of the
procedures involved.
NE-3, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
NE-3, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
NW-1, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
NW-1, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from
The Office of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting
System,
P.O. Box 189,
Moffett Field, CA
94035-0189
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
February 2010 Report Intake
Air Carrier/Air Taxi Pilots 2673
General Aviation Pilots 751
Controllers 535
Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other 393
TOTAL 4352
ASRS Alerts Issued in February 2010
Subject of Alert No. of Alerts
Aircraft or aircraft equipment 9
Airport facility or procedure 13
ATC equipment or procedures 5
Maintenance procedure 3
TOTAL 30
The key to communicating at an airport without an operating
Control Tower is selection of the correct common frequency for
airport advisories while operating to or from the airport. CTAF,
which stands for Common Traffic Advisory Frequency, is designated
for this purpose. Use of the correct CTAF, combined with visual
alertness and application of recommended operating practices, will
enhance safety of flight during non-Towered operations.
This month we focus on ASRS non-Towered airport incidents that
emphasize the following themes:
• Communication – Monitoring CTAF and use of the radio to
report position and intentions.
• Traffic Mix – Being aware that straight-in IFR traffic to a
non-Towered field may conflict with patterns for VFR traffic,
especially in reduced visibility conditions (broken or overcast
ceilings, haze, etc.).
• Avoidance – Practicing see-and-avoid procedures and visually
checking the final approach course before takeoff or landing.
• Frequency – Use of the correct CTAF and current charts and
flight information.
Monitor CTAF and Use Radios
An ATP-rated passenger in a Mooney aircraft was “along for the
ride” when the owner/pilot neglected to follow recommended
communication procedures at a non-Towered airport.
n The owner/pilot in command was flying and I was a passenger/
observer. He entered the traffic pattern at approximately 800 feet
AGL mid-field. Pilot did not monitor CTAF – he entered base
and final and landed without incident. A C-210 was on opposite
direction final at the time and he had to initiate a go-around to
avoid conflict on landing. C-210 pilot was very upset on the ground
after landing. Mooney pilot departed before a confrontation
occurred. There were no injuries or damage, but this event could
have been avoided….
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 3(89)