.  
Reduced attention (tunnel vision) in abnormal or high-workload conditions;

.  
Incorrect CRM techniques (i.e., for effective cross-check, crew coordination or backup);

.  
Company policies (e.g., regarding schedules, costs, go-around and diversion events);

.  
Other policies (e.g., crew duty time);

.  
Personal desires or constraints (i.e., personal schedule, focus on mission completion);

.  
Complacency; and/or,

.  
High time on aircraft type (i.e., overconfidence).

Human Factors in Approach and Landing Accidents
Page 1

Use of automation:
Errors in using and managing automatic flight systems and/or lack of awareness of operating modes are observed as causal factors in more than 20 % of approach-and-landing accidents and near-accidents.
These factors can result in flying an unintended flight path, which - if not recognized -can cause a less-than-desired terrain separation or a CFIT.
The following common errors in handling auto flight systems can increase the risk of approach-and-landing accidents:
.  
Inadvertent selection of an incorrect mode;

.  
Failure to verify the selected mode by reference to the flight mode annunciator (FMA);

.  
Failure to arm a mode when required (e.g., failure to arm the localizer or approach mode, when cleared for LOC or ILS interception);

.  
Failure to select a required guidance target (e.g., failure to set the ILS final approach course);

.  
Inadvertent change of a guidance target (i.e., changing the speed target instead of changing the selected heading);

.  
Selection of an incorrect altitude and failure to confirm the selection on the primary flight display (PFD);

.  
Selection of the altitude target to any altitude below the final approach intercept altitude during approach;

.  
Preoccupation with FMS programming during a critical flight phase, with consequent loss of situational awareness; and/or,

.  
Failure to monitor the automation, using raw data.

The Briefing Note 1.3 -Operations Golden Rules, addresses aspects that are considered frequent causal factors in approach and landing accidents, such as:

.  
Lack of situational / positional awareness;

.  
Interaction with automation;

.  
Overreliance on automation; and/or,

.  
Lack of crew crosscheck.

Briefing Techniques:
The importance of briefing techniques often is underestimated, although effective briefings contribute to enhance crew standardization and communication.
The routine and formal repetition of the same points on each sector may become counterproductive; adapting and expanding the briefing by highlighting the special aspects of the approach or the actual weather conditions and circumstances of the day result in more lively and effective briefings.
The briefing should attract the attention of the PNF.
The briefing should help both the PF (giving the briefing) and the PNF (receiving and acknowledging the briefing) to understand the sequence of events and actions, the safety key points, special hazards and circumstances of the approach.
An interactive briefing fulfills two important goals of the briefing: provide the PF and the PNF with an opportunity to:
.  
Correct each other; and,

.  
Share a common mental model of the approach.

Crew/ATC Communications:
Effective communication is achieved when our mental process for interpreting the information contained in a message accommodates the message being received.
This mental process can be summarized as follows:
.  
How do we perceive the message ?

.  
How do we reconstruct the information contained in the message ?
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Getting to Grips with Approach-and-Landing Accidents Reducti(53)