Connaisseur Karlin wrote: ↑25/02/2020 08:41
Bobi wrote: ↑25/02/2020 08:32
Izvini molim te, draga si nam
, mi samo chitamo
...a go around ne moze biti iniciran nekim dešavanjima na pisti i tako to
?
pa sto me sekrias na lijepi sabah
naravno da moze biti rezultat desavanja na pisti
da pojednostavim: u avijaiciji se jednsoavno sve biljezi sa ciljem immproviziranja , usmmejravanja i poboljsanja sigusrnosti letenja i rada na aerodromima
evo primjer investigation nepravilne go-arund procedure a ista je u sekcij " go around event" :
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf
Kad si sama stavila ovaj slucaj, odmah na pocetku pise ono sto ja tvrdim, a ne sto ti pricas... Pa kaze:
Abstract
On 21 July 2007, an Airbus Industrie A320-232 aircraft was being operated on a scheduled
international passenger service between Christchurch, New Zealand and Melbourne, Australia. At
the decision height on the instrument approach into Melbourne, the crew conducted a missed
approach as they did not have the required visual reference because of fog. The pilot in command
did not perform the go-around procedure correctly and, in the process, the crew were unaware of
the aircraft’s current flight mode. The aircraft descended to within 38 ft of the ground before
climbing.
The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for a go-around and, as a result,
the crew were not prompted to confirm the aircraft’s flight mode status until a number of other
procedure items had been completed. As a result of the aircraft not initially climbing, and the crew
being distracted by an increased workload and unexpected alerts and warnings, those items were
not completed. The operator had not conducted a risk analysis of the change to the procedure and
did not satisfy the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system (SMS) or of the
Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.
As a result of this occurrence, the aircraft operator changed its go-around procedure to reflect that
of the aircraft manufacturer, and its SMS to require a formal risk management process in support of
any proposal to change an aircraft operating procedure. In addition, the operator is reviewing its
flight training requirements, has invoked a number of changes to its document control procedures,
and has revised the incident reporting requirements of its SMS.
In addition to the safety action taken by the aircraft operator the aircraft manufacturer has, as a
result of the occurrence, enhanced its published go-around procedures to emphasise the critical
nature of the flight crew actions during a go-around.
Dakle, najkrace moguce receno, nije problem bio go-around, nego to sto je procedura izvedena nepravilno, i za vrijeme tog nepravilnog izvrsavanja se avion spustio (u uslovima lose vidljivosti-magla) do 11,5 metara visine, prije nego je ponovo povecao visinu, i u stvari odradio go-around kako treba. Dakle, radi se o ozbiljnom Incidentu (koji je moga kostati zivota xxx ljudi u avionu, da su se spustili jos 12 metara), koji agencije za sigurnost letenja istrazuju (investigate) da se ne bi vise nikada desile (daj boze), i time dovele zivote u opasnost.
To je bio uzrok istrage. Sve ostalo su bili contributing factors (faktori koji su doveli do tog dogadjaja), i oni se onda analiziraju da se tacno zna sta je uticalo na sta, i kako to u buducnosti izbjeci.
ne pisem detalje, a ti ih ne poznajes, zato ovako reagiras i vodis debatu na nivou svadje
Zasto bi ATC onda bio postedjen istrage? I oni mogu biti u krivu...?
