發信人: lmuo (藍天)    看板: Aero
日期: 11/01/99 11:51:59 Mon
標題: trained or experienced pilot


在先前討論起飛和降落的文章中, 談到 experienced pilot (有經驗的駕駛員)與 trained
pilot(受過訓的駕駛員). 在此以名古屋空難來談談這兩種駕駛員.

我想大家都會同意: 一名駕駛員必定是 trained pilot, 但不一定是 experienced pilot.

然而 trained pilot 並不保證就是 well-trained pilot(好好被訓練的駕駛員). 以名古
屋空難為例:(英文部份引用自名古屋空難報告)

1. 正副駕駛都未接受1991年A310意外事件的飛安訓練.
China Airlines used the technical report on the incident of the A310 aircraft 
that had occurred on February 11, 1991 in Moscow for the training of the crew 
members concerned. The CAP and F/O involved in the accident did not attend the 
training that utilized the above technical report, as at the time they were 
not yet been assigned to A300-600R aircraft.

2. 由法國提供的模擬機訓練手冊並未更新, 加入A310意外事件的改正項目.
The simulator training manual used by China Airlines was prepared by 
Aeroformation of France. However, it had not been updated.

3. 飛行組員操作手冊對重飛模式的說明含糊, 無法使駕駛員完全瞭解飛機操作的限制.
The FCOM description, however, does not mention that GO-AROUND mode does not 
disengage completely when only a longitudinal mode is selected. Readers, 
therefore, are misinformed as to the precise relationship between how the 
various modes are selected, how they are displayed on FMA, and how they 
actually work. 

因此, 我們能相信所有民航駕駛員都好好地受過訓練嗎? 他們真的完全瞭解自己駕駛的飛
機嗎?

再來看 experienced pilot. 名古屋空難的正駕駛甚為資深──總飛行時數8340小時又19
分，遠高於副駕駛的1624小時又11分, 可算是一名 experienced pilot. 但經驗豐富一定
好嗎?

1. 為了解除重飛模式, 正駕駛不斷要副駕駛推機頭, 這動作對波音飛機是適用, 但當時
   對華航的A300-600R卻是無效的, 因為華航收到的相關SB(服務通報)並非"強制執行"(
   mandatory), 所以並未立即執行, 也就是說在正駕駛以過去駕駛B747的經驗來飛A300-
   600R, 但在重飛模式方面, 兩種飛機的操作方式並不完全一致.
It is probably that the CAP did not recognize that the APs were engaged, or 
that although he recognized it, he believed he could continuously override the 
APs. His belief may have arisen either from confusion with regard to the 
supervisory override function of the A300-600R, or from his flight experience 
in B747.

2. 正駕駛當時不負責飛機, 也就是Pilot Not Flying, 應該大聲唸出各項檢查表讓副駕駛
   確認, 但過去的經驗讓他認為大聲唸檢查表是多餘的(台灣民航駕駛員的通病).
At 1059:04 and 1113:14, the CAP (PNF) read out the approach checklist and the 
landing checklist at the request of the F/O (PF), but these were not performed 
in the proper manner because the CAP (PNF) read the items only to himself, 
including those to which the CAP and F/O (PF) should responded together.

所以, 名古屋空難的造成與 trained pilot 和 experienced pilot 有何關係呢?
1. 他們都是 trained pilot, 但非 well-trained pilot.
2. 正駕駛是 experienced pilot, 但他的經驗卻對當時的狀況沒有助益, 甚至有害.

個人的看法是: 訓練絕對重要, 任何民航駕駛員都應是 well-trained pilot, 而不僅是
trained pilot 而已, 這不僅要靠公司的栽培, 更要靠自己的努力, 因為飛機摔了, 你也
沒命了. 至於經驗呢? 這倒不重要, 若能成為 well-trained pilot 並按照標準作業程序
來執行, 那麼飛行時數又如何? 最怕的以為自己是老鳥而不遵守規定, 這才最危險.
--
* Origin: 中山大學-美麗之島BBS * From: 140.116.81.93 [已通過認證]
.