DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Aspects of Tailwind Operationssafety Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safety Aspects of Tailwind Operationssafety Operations NationaalNa Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium NLR-TP-2001-003 Safety aspects of tailwind operationsSafety operations G.W.H. van Es and A.K. Karwal Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium National Aerospace Laboratory NLR NLR-TP-2001-003 Safety aspects of tailwind operations G.W.H. van Es and A.K. Karwal This report is based on a presentation held on the Flight Safety Foundation Annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, Amsterdam, The Netherlands on 12-14 March, 2001. The contents of this report may be cited on condition that full credit is given to NLR and the authors. Division: Air Transport Issued: January 2001 Classification of title: Unclassified -3- NLR-TP-2001-003 Summary In the present study the safety aspects of aircraft takeoff and landing operations in tailwinds are explored. The study covers a description of legislative instruments that influence preferential runway selection in relation to the maximum tailwind component applied; tailwind certification issues; and relevant safety issues concerning tailwind operations in general. Also a systematic analysis of historical tailwind related overrun accidents and incidents is presented. Some of the important findings of this study are: • In many of the analysed accidents the actual tailwind exceeded the approved limit. • The tailwind component determined by the Flight Management System (FMS) appears to be relatively insensitive to common FMS errors. • Present-day wake vortex separation criteria for final approach may be insufficient in light tailwind conditions. • Operating on wet or contaminated runways in combination with a tailwind yields a high risk of an overrun. • Current certification requirements of operations in tailwinds greater than 10 Knots are limited to guidelines in the Flight Test Guide. -4- NLR-TP-2001-003 Contents 1 Introduction 6 2 Legislation, standards and recommendations 6 2.1 Runway selection 6 2.1.1 ICAO recommendation for noise preferential runways 6 2.1.2 FAA recommendation for noise preferential runways 6 2.2 Aircraft certification 7 2.3 Aircraft takeoff and landing performance information 10 3 Operational issues 10 3.1 Effect of tailwind on field performance 10 3.2 Tailwind during the approach 11 3.2.1 Speed, path and configuration control 11 3.2.2 Rate of descent 12 3.3 Floating during landing 13 3.4 Wake vortices and tailwind 13 3.4.1 Approach 13 3.4.2 Landing 13 3.5 Wind information available to the flight crew 14 3.5.1 ATIS wind reporting 14 3.5.2 Tower wind reporting 15 3.5.3 FMS wind 15 4 Analysis of tailwind related overrun events 16 4.1 Phase of flight 16 4.2 Runway surface condition 17 4.3 Excessive approach speed 17 4.4 Floating during landing flare 18 4.5 Tailwind conditions 19 5 Conclusions and recommendations 20 5.1 Conclusions 20 5.2 Recommendations 20 6 References 21 -5- NLR-TP-2001-003 Appendix A: PANS-OPS Doc 8168-OPS/611, Chapter 2.1 22 Appendix B: FAA Order 7110.65L: Air Traffic Control 23 Appendix C: FAA Order 8400.9: National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Programs 24 Appendix D: Flight Test Guide FAA AC 25-7A (31/3/98) 25 (26 pages in total) -6- NLR-TP-2001-003 1 Introduction The present study will explore the safety aspects of aircraft takeoff and landing operations in tailwinds. Legislative instruments and the maximum tailwind component that influence preferential runway selection at airports are explored. Certification of tailwind operations is reviewed in detail. The relevant safety issues concerning tailwind operations are reviewed and discussed. Finally a systematic analysis of historical tailwind related overrun accidents and incidents is presented. The basic objective of the present study is to get a general understanding of the issues that play a role in the safety of tailwind operations. 2 Legislation, standards and recommendations 2.1 Runway selection World-wide more than 300 airports have a noise preferential runway system. There are international recommendations regarding the runway assignment process and the maximum tailwind component used in selecting the preferred runway: a recommendation by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and a recommendation by the Federal Aviation Authorities (FAA). 2.1.1 ICAO recommendation for noise preferential runways In the PANS-OPS1 document, ICAO recommends a maximum tailwind for runway selection of 5 Knots including gusts (see Appendix A). The guidance material provided in PANS-OPS does not carry the status afforded to Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) adopted by the Council, and therefore does not come with the obligation imposed by Article 38 of the Convention to notify differences in the event of non-implementation. Furthermore SARPs are adopted by the Council as Annexes to the Convention, whereas guidance material such as the PANS-OPS are approved by the Council and are recommended to the contracting states for world-wide implementation. 2.1.2 FAA recommendation for noise preferential runways The FAA has published an Order that prescribes air traffic control procedures, including runway selection criteria. When no ‘runway use’2 program is in effect, FAA Order 7110.65L applies, see Appendix B. This Order prescribes the selection of the active runway as the one most 1 PROCEDURES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES-AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS. 2 Runway use program: A noise abatement runway selection plan designed to enhance noise abatement efforts. These plans are developed into runway use programs. Runway use programs are coordinated with the FAA. -7- NLR-TP-2001-003 aligned with the wind when the wind exceeds 5 Knots, effectively restricting the tailwind component to 5 Knots through runway selection. No reference is made to gusts. For runway use programs, FAA Order 7110.65L refers to another publication (FAA Order 8400.9 "National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Programs", see Appendix C). The purpose of FAA Order 8400.9 is to provide safety and operational criteria for runway use programs. These criteria are applicable to all runway use programs for turbojet aircraft. The Order provides parameters in the form of safety and operational criteria that must be used in the evaluation and/or approval of runway use programs. Regarding tailwind conditions, an important distinction is made here between dry and wet runways: for dry runways a tailwind component of 5 Knots (7 Knots if an anemometer is installed near the touchdown zone) may be present. For wet runways, no tailwind component may be present at all. Again, no instructions are given on how to interpret gusts that may exceed the given values. 2.2 Aircraft certification Under Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 25 or Joint Aviation Requirements JAR Part 25 no specific flight-testing is required for approval of operations in tailwind components of up to 10 Knots. Aircraft certified according to FAR/JAR Part 25 are therefore automatically approved for operations in tailwind components of up to 10 Knots. The origin of this 10 Knots tailwind limit can be found in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Civil Air Regulations release 60- 14, dated August 9, 1960. Specific flight-testing is required for approval of operations in tailwind components greater than 10 Knots. The requirements for these tests are not provided in the FAR/JAR Part 25. Currently only FAA Advisory Circular AC 25-7A (Flight Test Guide) gives guidance for the certification of tailwind operations greater than 10 Knots (see Appendix D). At present the FAA and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) are trying to harmonise the FAA Flight Test Guide with the JAA equivalent. The section on tailwind certification is also under discussion. Although the work has not been finalised some of the important issues of this discussion are presented here (Ref. [1]): • For the certification of tailwind operations greater than 10 Knots, the FAA requires that testing is done with a tailwind greater than 150% of the value to be certified. Furthermore the FAA also states that an average tailwind should be used. When certifying tailwind operations of for instance 15 Knots, the "average" tailwind during flight testing must be 22.5 Knots (all wind speeds are measured at a height of 10 meters above the surface). In such conditions the wind is very gusty and the tailwind component can momentarily reach values of 30 Knots or higher. JAA considers such conditions as very severe and therefore proposed to amend the FAA guidelines on the 150% factor. -8- NLR-TP-2001-003 • The FAA considers that takeoff test flights with one engine inoperative should be conducted to show acceptable handling qualities during tailwind operations. The JAA does not consider this to be critical. Therefore this issue is still subject to discussion. During tailwind certification flight tests the measured wind data can come from the Inertial Navigation System (INS), tower, or portable ground recording stations (See Flight Test Guide for details). The wind data should be corrected to a 10-meter height. The tower wind contains a mean wind based on a two minute sample and (if high enough) a gusting wind value. Wind derived from the INS can include gusts depending on for instance the way the data are analysed. Among the aircraft manufactures different ways of analysing INS based wind data exist. Also engineering judgement is used in fairing the INS wind data which can introduce subjectivity into the results. An overview of tailwind limits obtained from available Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFMs) of a number of transport aircraft is given in table 1. The tailwind components are measured at or corrected to a 10-meter height. A large number of aircraft listed in table 1 have a tailwind limit of 15 Knots. This does not mean that all operators have approval to conduct takeoffs or landings with tailwind components greater than 10 Knots.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhancing Flight-Crew Monitoring Skills Can Increase Flight Safety
    Enhancing Flight-crew Monitoring Skills Can Increase Flight Safety 55th International Air Safety Seminar Flight Safety Foundation November 4–7, 2002 • Dublin, Ireland Captain Robert L. Sumwalt, III Chairman, Human Factors and Training Group Air Line Pilots Association, International Captain Ronald J. Thomas Supervisor, Flight Training and Standards US Airways Key Dismukes, Ph.D. Chief Scientist for Aerospace Human Factors NASA Ames Research Center To ensure the highest levels of safety each flight crewmember must carefully monitor the aircraft’s flight path and systems, as well as actively cross-check the actions of each other.1 Effective crew monitoring and cross-checking can literally be the last line of defense; when a crewmember can catch an error or unsafe act, this detection may break the chain of events leading to an accident scenario. Conversely, when this layer of defense is absent the error may go undetected, leading to adverse safety consequences. Following a fatal controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) approach and landing accident (ALA) involving a corporate turbo-prop the surviving pilot (who was the Pilot Not Flying) told one of the authors of this paper, “If I had been watching the instruments I could have prevented the accident.” This pilot’s poignant statement is quite telling; in essence, he is stating that if he had better monitored the flight instruments he could have detected the aircraft’s descent below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) before it struck terrain. This pilot’s statement is eerily similar to a conclusion reached by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) after an airliner descended through the MDA and impacted terrain during a nighttime instrument approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Engine Performance Study Using Flight Data Recorder Archives
    Aircraft Engine Performance Study Using Flight Data Recorder Archives Yashovardhan S. Chati∗ and Hamsa Balakrishnan y Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA Aircraft emissions are a significant source of pollution and are closely related to engine fuel burn. The onboard Flight Data Recorder (FDR) is an accurate source of information as it logs operational aircraft data in situ. The main objective of this paper is the visualization and exploration of data from the FDR. The Airbus A330 - 223 is used to study the variation of normalized engine performance parameters with the altitude profile in all the phases of flight. A turbofan performance analysis model is employed to calculate the theoretical thrust and it is shown to be a good qualitative match to the FDR reported thrust. The operational thrust settings and the times in mode are found to differ significantly from the ICAO standard values in the LTO cycle. This difference can lead to errors in the calculation of aircraft emission inventories. This paper is the first step towards the accurate estimation of engine performance and emissions for different aircraft and engine types, given the trajectory of an aircraft. I. Introduction Aircraft emissions depend on engine characteristics, particularly on the fuel flow rate and the thrust. It is therefore, important to accurately assess engine performance and operational fuel burn. Traditionally, the estimation of fuel burn and emissions has been done using the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank1. However, this method is approximate and the results have been shown to deviate from the measured values of emissions from aircraft in operation2,3.
    [Show full text]
  • E6bmanual2016.Pdf
    ® Electronic Flight Computer SPORTY’S E6B ELECTRONIC FLIGHT COMPUTER Sporty’s E6B Flight Computer is designed to perform 24 aviation functions and 20 standard conversions, and includes timer and clock functions. We hope that you enjoy your E6B Flight Computer. Its use has been made easy through direct path menu selection and calculation prompting. As you will soon learn, Sporty’s E6B is one of the most useful and versatile of all aviation computers. Copyright © 2016 by Sportsman’s Market, Inc. Version 13.16A page: 1 CONTENTS BEFORE USING YOUR E6B ...................................................... 3 DISPLAY SCREEN .................................................................... 4 PROMPTS AND LABELS ........................................................... 5 SPECIAL FUNCTION KEYS ....................................................... 7 FUNCTION MENU KEYS ........................................................... 8 ARITHMETIC FUNCTIONS ........................................................ 9 AVIATION FUNCTIONS ............................................................. 9 CONVERSIONS ....................................................................... 10 CLOCK FUNCTION .................................................................. 12 ADDING AND SUBTRACTING TIME ....................................... 13 TIMER FUNCTION ................................................................... 14 HEADING AND GROUND SPEED ........................................... 15 PRESSURE AND DENSITY ALTITUDE ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • China's Aircraft Carrier Ambitions
    CHINA’S AIRCRAFT CARRIER AMBITIONS An Update Nan Li and Christopher Weuve his article will address two major analytical questions. First, what are the T necessary and suffi cient conditions for China to acquire aircraft carriers? Second, what are the major implications if China does acquire aircraft carriers? Existing analyses on China’s aircraft carrier ambitions are quite insightful but also somewhat inadequate and must therefore be updated. Some, for instance, argue that with the advent of the Taiwan issue as China’s top threat priority by late 1996 and the retirement of Liu Huaqing as vice chair of China’s Central Military Commission (CMC) in 1997, aircraft carriers are no longer considered vital.1 In that view, China does not require aircraft carriers to capture sea and air superiority in a war over Taiwan, and China’s most powerful carrier proponent (Liu) can no longer infl uence relevant decision making. Other scholars suggest that China may well acquire small-deck aviation platforms, such as helicopter carriers, to fulfi ll secondary security missions. These missions include naval di- plomacy, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and antisubmarine warfare.2 The present authors conclude, however, that China’s aircraft carrier ambitions may be larger than the current literature has predicted. Moreover, the major implications of China’s acquiring aircraft carriers may need to be explored more carefully in order to inform appropriate reactions on the part of the United States and other Asia-Pacifi c naval powers. This article updates major changes in the four major conditions that are necessary and would be largely suffi cient for China to acquire aircraft carriers: leadership endorsement, fi nancial affordability, a relatively concise naval strat- egy that defi nes the missions of carrier operations, and availability of requisite 14 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • GFC 700 AFCS Supplement
    GFC 700 AFCS Supplement GFC 700 AFCS Supplement Autopilot Basics Flight Director vs. Autopilot Controls Activating the System Modes Mode Awareness What the GFC 700 Does Not Control Other Training Resources Automation Philosophy Limitations Modes Quick Reference Tables Lateral Modes Vertical Modes Lateral Modes Roll Hold Heading Select (HDG) Navigation (NAV) Approach (APR) Backcourse Vertical Modes Pitch Hold Altitude Hold (ALT) Glidepath (GP) Glideslope (GS) Go Around (GA) Selected Altitude Capture (ALTS) Autopilot Procedures Preflight Takeoff / Departure En Route Arrival/Approach Approaches Without Vertical Guidance Approaches With Vertical Guidance Revised: 02/08/2021 Missed Approach Autopilot Malfunctions/Emergencies Annunciations Cautions (Yellow) Warnings (Red) Emergency Procedures Manual Electric Trim Control Wheel Steering C172 w/ GFC700 Autopilot Checklist Piper Archer w/ GFC700 Autopilot Checklist Supplement Profile Addenda Autopilot Basics Flight Director vs. Autopilot ATP’s newer Cessna 172s and Piper Archers come factory-equipped with the GFC 700 Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). The GFC 700 AFCS, like most autoflight systems, includes both a flight director (FD) and an autopilot (AP). The FD calculates the pitch and bank angles needed to fly the desired course, heading, altitude, speed, etc., that the pilot has programmed. It then displays these angles on the primary flight display (PFD) using magenta command bars. The pilot can follow the desired flight path by manipulating the control wheel to align the yellow aircraft symbol with the command bars. Alternately, the pilot can activate the AP, which uses servos to adjust the elevators, ailerons, and elevator trim as necessary to follow the command bars. Controls The AFCS is activated and programmed using buttons on the left bezel of the PFD and the multifunction display (MFD).
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Analysis of Advanced Flight: Planning Concepts
    NASA Contractor Report 4063 Design and Analysis of Advanced Flight: Planning Concepts Johri A. Sorerisen CONrRACT NAS1- 17345 MARCH 1987 NASA Contractor Report 4063 Design and Analysis of Advanced Flight Planning Concepts John .A. Sorensen Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. Moantain View, California Prepared for Langley Research Center under Contract NAS 1- 17345 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch 1987 F'OREWORD This continuing effort for development of concepts for generating near-optimum flight profiles that minimize fuel or direct operating costs was supported under NASA Contract No. NAS1-17345, by Langley Research Center, Hampton VA. The project Technical Monitor at Langley Research Center was Dan D. Vicroy. Technical discussion with and suggestions from Mr. Vicroy, David H. Williams, and Charles E. Knox of Langley Research Center are gratefully acknowledged. The technical information concerning the Chicago-Phoenix flight plan used as an example throughout this study was provided by courtesy of United Airlines. The weather information used to exercise the experimental flight planning program EF'PLAN developed in this study was provided by courtesy of Pacific Southwest Airlines. At AMA, Inc., the project manager was John A. Sorensen. Engineering support was provided by Tsuyoshi Goka, Kioumars Najmabadi, and Mark H, Waters. Project programming support was provided by Susan Dorsky, Ann Blake, and Casimer Lesiak. iii DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED FLIGHT PLANNING CONCEPTS John A. Sorensen Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. SUMMARY The Objectives of this continuing effort are to develop and evaluate new algorithms and advanced concepts for flight management and flight planning. This includes the minimization of fuel or direct operating costs, the integration of the airborne flight management and ground-based flight planning processes, and the enhancement of future traffic management systems design.
    [Show full text]
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane
    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Off Airport Ops Guide
    Off Airport Ops Guide TECHNIQUES FOR OFF AIRPORT OPERATIONS weight and balance limitations for your aircraft. Always file a flight plan detailing the specific locations you intend Note: This document suggests techniques and proce- to explore. Make at least 3 recon passes at different levels dures to improve the safety of off-airport operations. before attempting a landing and don’t land unless you’re It assumes that pilots have received training on those sure you have enough room to take off. techniques and procedures and is not meant to replace instruction from a qualified and experienced flight instruc- High Level: Circle the area from different directions to de- tor. termine the best possible landing site in the vicinity. Check the wind direction and speed using pools of water, drift General Considerations: Off-airport operations can be of the plane, branches, grass, dust, etc. Observe the land- extremely rewarding; transporting people and gear to lo- ing approach and departure zone for obstructions such as cations that would be difficult or impossible to reach in trees or high terrain. any other way. Operating off-airport requires high perfor- mance from pilot and aircraft and acquiring the knowledge Intermediate: Level: Make a pass in both directions along and experience to conduct these operations safely takes either side of the runway to check for obstructions and time. Learning and practicing off-airport techniques under runway length. Check for rock size. Note the location of the supervision of an experienced flight instructor will not the touchdown area and roll-out area. Associate land- only make you safer, but also save you time and expense.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner
    A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner Andrew S. Hahn 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681 Most jet airliner conceptual designs adhere to conventional takeoff and landing performance. Given this predominance, takeoff and landing performance has not been critical, since it has not been an active constraint in the design. Given that the demand for air travel is projected to increase dramatically, there is interest in operational concepts, such as Metroplex operations that seek to unload the major hub airports by using underutilized surrounding regional airports, as well as using underutilized runways at the major hub airports. Both of these operations require shorter takeoff and landing performance than is currently available for airliners of approximately 100-passenger capacity. This study examines the issues of modeling performance in this now critical flight regime as well as the impact of progressively reducing takeoff and landing field length requirements on the aircraft’s characteristics. Nomenclature CTOL = conventional takeoff and landing FAA = Federal Aviation Administration FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation RJ = regional jet STOL = short takeoff and landing UCD = three-dimensional Weissinger lifting line aerodynamics program I. Introduction EMAND for air travel over the next fifty to D seventy-five years has been projected to be as high as three times that of today. Given that the major airport hubs are already congested, and that the ability to increase capacity at these airports by building more full- size runways is limited, unconventional solutions are being considered to accommodate the projected increased demand. Two possible solutions being considered are: Metroplex operations, and using existing underutilized runways at the major hub airports.
    [Show full text]
  • Aic France a 31/12
    TECHNICAL SERVICE ☎ : +33 (0)5 57 92 57 57 AIC FRANCE Fax : +33 (0)5 57 92 57 77 ✉ : [email protected] A 31/12 Site SIA : http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr Publication date: DEC 27 SUBJECT : Deployment of CDO (continuous descent operations) on the French territory 1 INTRODUCTION After a trial and assessment period, the DSNA (French Directorate for Air Navigation Services) would now like to deploy continuous descent operations all across the French territory. When well performed by pilots, continuous descent reduces the effects of aircraft noise on the residential areas near airports and CO2 emissions. Continuous descent approach performance indicators for the residential community (reduction of noise linked to the elimination of superfluous sound levels) are or shall soon be available for all large French airports. The gains in CO2 shall be included in national greenhouse gas emission monitoring indicators. The DSNA will use this AIC to provide a set of recommendations and procedures on how to create, deploy and use this type of operation at national level, in order to help airlines perform successful CDO. Both the applications of the internationally standardized general principles and the French choices for fields which are not yet standardized are described in this AIC. 2 DEFINITION CDO (Continuous Descent Operations) is a flight technique which enables aircraft to have optimized flight profiles, either linked to instrument approach procedures and adapted airspace structures or air control techniques, by using reduced engine power and whenever possible, configurations limiting aerodynamic drag, in order to decrease the following: - noise nuisance in the areas surrounding the aerodromes, - emissions of gases into the atmosphere, - consumption of aircraft fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to Spacex for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the Mcgregor Test Site, Texas September 2011
    Federal Aviation Administration Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas September 2011 HQ-111451 Draft EA for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .............................................................................2 1.3 Request for Comments on the Draft EA .........................................................................2 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......3 2.1 Proposed Action ..............................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Grasshopper RLV ..............................................................................................5 2.1.1.1 Description ......................................................................................... 5 2.1.1.2 Pre-flight and Post-flight Activities ................................................... 5 2.1.1.3 Flight Profile (Takeoff, Flight,
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Commun
    Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA/AM-10/12 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Communicating With Native English-Speaking Pilots O. Veronika Prinzo Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 Alan Campbell Johns Creek, GA 30022 Alfred M. Hendrix Ruby Hendrix HCS Consulting Services Roswell, NM 88201 August 2010 Final Report OK-10-0077-JAH NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, August 2010 Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Communication With 6. Performing Organization Code Native English-Speaking Pilots 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 1 2 3 3 Prinzo OV, Campbell A, Hendrix A, and Hendrix R 1FAA CAMI 2Capt. A Campbell 3Hendrix & Hendrix P.O. Box 25082 Johns Creek, GA Consulting Services Oklahoma City, OK 73125 30022 Roswell, NM 88201 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute P.O.
    [Show full text]