DOT-FAA-AFS-440-12 Safety Study Report On Aircraft Discrimination And .

2y ago
15 Views
2 Downloads
964.51 KB
32 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 6m ago
Upload by : Alexia Money
Transcription

Safety Study ReportDOT-FAA-AFS-440-12Safety Study Report on Aircraft Discrimination andMasking Evaluation for the Proposed Runway 17R EndAround Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort WorthInternational Airport (DFW)Mark A. Reisweber, AFS-440Dr. James H. Yates, AFS-440John Helleberg, MITRE CorporationRick Compton, ASWTerry Stubblefield, AFS-410Dick Temple, AFS-410Sally Bishop, EditorJune 2005Flight Operations Simulationand Analysis Branch, AFS-4406425 S. Denning, Room 104Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73169Phone: (405) 954-8191

NOTICEThis document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in theinterest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents oruse thereof.The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers'names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

DOT-FAA-AFS-440-12Federal Aviation AdministrationFlight Operations Simulation and Analysis Branch, AFS-440Flight Technologies and Procedures DivisionFlight Standards ServiceSafety Study Report on Aircraft Discrimination andMasking Evaluation for the Proposed Runway 17R EndAround Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth InternationalAirport (DFW)Reviewed by: (.;. j;; e/StephnW.BarnesDateManager, Flight Operations Simulationand Analysis BranchReleased by:June 2005? 2/xJS

Technical Report Documentation Page1. Report No.2. Government Accession No.3. Recipient's Catalog No.DOT-FAA-AFS-440-125. Report Date4. Title and SubtitleJun-05Safety Study Report on Aircraft Discrimination and MaskingEvaluation for the Proposed Runway 17R End Around Taxiway (EAT)at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)7. Performing Organization Code6. Author(s)Mark A. Reisweber, Dr. James YatesJohn Helleberg , Rick ComptonDick TempleTerry Stubblefield9. Type of Report and Period Covered8. Performing Organization Name and AddressFlight Operations Simulation and Analysis Branch, AFS-440Mike Monroney Aeronautical CenterP O Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 7312510. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressFederal Aviation AdministrationFlight Operations Simulation and Analysis BranchP 0. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 7312511. Supplementary NotesThe Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) proposes the construction and operation of End-Around Taxiways(EAT) for their north/south runways. This study was a follow-on study to the Proof-of-Concept Demonstration for theproposed Runway 17R EAT at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). The objective data showed thatapproximately half of the pilots did not recognize that an evaluator-induced incursion had occurred and pointed tohe need for specific visual and operational mitigating factors. Based upon a review of airport ground safetyconsiderations and regulations, we proposed a study of the use of a frangible barrier, to be placed past thedeparture end of the runway (DER) at a distance commensurate with Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), RunwaySafety Area (RSA) and Precision Obstacle Free Area (POFA) considerations. This study evaluated both an above ground barrier and a depression in elevation of the EAT. Of the two, the feature that best helps to shorten responseime in aircraft discrimination is a barrier. A depression, while not optimal, does improve performance more than nobarrier or no depression at all. We evaluated the difference in masking effect (height of barrier or depth ofdepression) between masking up to the Top of Engines and masking up to the Top of Passenger Windows. Ouranalysis of the results indicated that there is no significant difference between either of those, within the barrier ordepression variable, respectively. In other words, the lower of the masking conditions (in this case, 13 feet) issufficient to provide a masking effect that will enhance aircraft discrimination. During post-evaluation debriefings,pilot responses and comments indicated a high degree of certainty in making a decision as soon as an EAT orCrossing Aircraft breaches the widest lateral limits of the simulated barrier. This suggests that as width of the barrieris increased, aircraft discrimination response times may decrease.13. Key Words14. Distribution StatementControlled by AFS-44015. Security Classification of This ReportUnclassified16. Security Classification of This PageUnclassifiedii

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) proposes the construction and operationof End-Around Taxiways (EAT) for their north/south runways. There are no regulatory criteriaor standard(s) that specifically dictate EAT design and/or operation, nor are there any presentstandards that prohibit EAT operations. To address this issue, the FAA is now in the early stagesof developing an “End-Around Taxiway National Standard,” of which the results of thisevaluation will be considered.This study was a follow-on study to the Proof-of-Concept Demonstration for the proposedRunway 17R EAT at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). For the purposes ofthis study, the terms End-Around Taxiway and Perimeter Taxiway are interchangeable. Basedupon the findings of the previous study (FAA Technical Report #DOT-FAA-AFS-440-6), wedetermined that there was sufficient evidence, within both the objective and subjective datacollected, that indicates it is difficult for pilots to determine whether an aircraft is incurringthe runway or safely operating on the respective EAT. The objective data showed thatapproximately half of the pilots in the incursion condition did not recognize that an incursionhad occurred. The subjective data reflects pilot comments and concerns about the difficultyin determining whether an aircraft is incurring the runway or on an EAT. The presence of thiscondition could make actual incursions more difficult to detect, increase the time it takes theflight crew to react to an incursion, and logically increase the number of aborted takeoffs as aresult. These indicators pointed to the need for specific visual and operational mitigating factorsas well as pilot training that addresses EAT operations.It was the consensus of personnel from the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, Commercial Airlines,Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), NASA, FAA (Flight Standards, Air Traffic, and Airports),the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development/MITRE and others that we mustminimize potential confusion in the minds of the flight crew (individually or collectively)between what might be a crossing aircraft versus an EAT aircraft, before EAT operations canbe put in place. Given that basic premise, a determination was made to mask or hide from view,aircraft that are negotiating the EAT system. Based upon a review of airport ground safetyconsiderations and regulations, we proposed a study of the use of a frangible barrier, to be placedpast the departure end of the runway (DER) at a distance commensurate with Runway ProtectionZone (RPZ), Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Precision Obstacle Free Area (POFA)considerations.Specific to this study, we investigated strategies for dealing with discrimination between aircrafton an EAT and aircraft that may be crossing/incurring the active runway, given certain maskingbarrier dimensions and depressions of EAT elevation.This study evaluated both an above-ground barrier and a depression in elevation of the EAT. Ofthe two, the feature that best helps to shorten response time in aircraft discrimination is a barrier.iii

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005A depression, while not optimal, does improve performance more than no barrier or nodepression at all.We evaluated the difference in masking effect (height of barrier or depth of depression) betweenmasking up to the Top of Engines and masking up to the Top of Passenger Windows. Ouranalysis of the results indicated that there is no significant difference between either of those,within the barrier or depression variable, respectively. In other words, the lower of the maskingconditions (in this case, 13 feet) is sufficient to provide a masking effect that will enhanceaircraft discrimination.During post-evaluation debriefings, pilot responses and comments indicated a high degree ofcertainty in making a decision as soon as an EAT or crossing aircraft breaches the widest laterallimits of the simulated barrier. This suggests that as width of the barrier is increased, aircraftdiscrimination response times may decrease.This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the approved plan. In keeping with the statedpurpose of evaluating specific visual and operational mitigating factors, it was successful. Ingathering pilot responses concerning the use of a masking barrier and determining if a differenceexists between a masking barrier and a depression, we are able to draw certain conclusions andmake specific recommendations for permanent DFW operations when an EAT is in use.iv

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005TABLE OF CONTENTS1.0 . INTRODUCTION .11.1. PURPOSE .11.2. BACKGROUND .12.0. HUMAN FACTORS EVALUATION .32.1. GENERAL .32.2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY.42.3. SIMULATION SCENARIOS .82.4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.142.5. OBJECTIVE (IN-THE-COCKPIT) OBSERVATIONS .202.6. PILOT COMMENTS/DEBRIEFING REMARKS .203.0. CONCLUSION.213.1. HUMAN FACTORS.213.2 SUMMARY .22LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSTABLESTable 1. Flight Simulator Variables/Scenarios and Conditions. 10/11FIGURESFigure 1. Pilot Briefing .12Figure 2. Post-Simulation De-Brief .13Figure 3. Mean Indicated Airspeed (IAS) At Downfield Aircraft Callout .15Figure 4. Mean Indicated Airspeed (IAS) At Downfield Aircraft Callout(EAT/Crossing).16v

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005Figure 5. Frequency of Incorrectly Identifying Downfield AircraftAcross EAT/Crossing .17Figure 6. Frequency of Incorrectly Identifying Downfield Aircraft.18Figure 7. Frequency of Incorrectly Identifying Downfield Aircraft (EAT/Crossing) .19ATTACHMENTSAttachment 1. Barrier Design Features.23Attachment 2. PC-Based Simulation Example .24.vi

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International SEJune 2005This study is a follow-on study to the Proof-of-Concept Demonstration for the proposed Runway17R End-Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). For thepurposes of this study, the terms End-Around Taxiway and Perimeter Taxiway areinterchangeable. Based upon the findings of the previous study (FAA Technical Report#DOT-FAA-AFS-440-6), we determined that there was sufficient evidence, within both theobjective and subjective data collected, that it is difficult for pilots to determine whether anaircraft is incurring the runway or safely operating on the respective EAT. The objective datashowed that approximately half of the pilots in the incursion condition did not recognize that anincursion had occurred. The subjective data reflects pilot comments and concerns about thedifficulty in determining whether an aircraft is incurring the runway or on an EAT. The presenceof this condition could make actual incursions more difficult to detect, increase the time it takesthe flight crew to react to an incursion, and increase the number of aborted takeoffs as a result.These indicators pointed to the need for specific visual and operational mitigating factors as wellas pilot training that addresses EAT operations.1.2.BACKGROUNDThe Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) proposes the construction and operationof EAT’s for their north/south runways. The key design features of this project are inAttachment 1.It is significant to note that there are presently no regulatory criteria or standard(s) thatspecifically dictate EAT design and/or operation, nor are there any present standards thatprohibit EAT operations. To address this issue, the FAA is now in the early stages of developingan “End-Around Taxiway National Standard,” of which this evaluation will be considered.Prior to the development of national EAT criteria, site-specific proposals such as DFW, needto be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Extensive discussion and analysis of the DFW casewith personnel from the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, Commercial Airlines, Airline PilotsAssociation (ALPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) (Flight Standards, Air Traffic, and Airports), the Center forAdvanced Aviation System Development/MITRE and others has taken place. The consensusof these experts was that the proposal for DFW EAT operations warranted further riskassessment and safety analysis. This was particularly the case with regard to Human Factors(human performance and limitations) issues. Further, this study primarily concentrated on theRWY 17R departure case.1

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005As previously mentioned, there may be confusion in the minds of the flight crew (individuallyor collectively) between what might be an EAT aircraft versus a crossing aircraft. It was theconsensus that we must minimize the confusion before EAT operations can be put in place.Given that basic premise, a determination was made to mask or hide from view, aircraft that arenegotiating the EAT system. Based upon a review of airport ground safety considerations andregulations, we are proposing the construction of a frangible barrier, to be placed past thedeparture end of the runway (DER) at a distance commensurate with Runway Protection Zone(RPZ), Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Precision Object Free Area (POFA) considerations.Possible design features of the barrier are in Attachment 1.While this was primarily a Human Factors analysis, designed toward obtaining a specific answerconcerning the dimensions of a proposed masking barrier, we also gathered information of asecondary nature. That information included:¾ Perceived pilot workload changes¾ Primary and Secondary task performance¾ Visual acquisition strategies and deficiencies during all phases of the departurewith on-going EAT operations in place¾ Impacts of the visual scene on pilot performance¾ Potential future human performance considerations during taxi operations on theEAT associated with lighting, signage, marking, pilot procedures, and otheroperating conditionsThis document outlines the framework employed for flight simulator preparation/use andmethodology for gathering pilot responses concerning the use of a masking barrier. Thisdocument will also prescribe the analysis of Human Factors data, and develop conclusionswhich may lead to recommendations for permanent DFW operations when an EAT is in use.This analysis is also intended to be considered during the development of a national standardfor EAT operations.It is important to note that the primary focus of this effort was to determine if EAT operations aresafe given the dimensions of proposed masking and the difference, if any, between a barrier anda land depression. It is not to gather aircraft-specific performance data. Although not a pre requisite for this evaluation, performance information (e.g. A/C position, angles, etc.) wererecorded and collected by the FAA. This data might potentially be used exclusively for analysismodeling and its use would remain within proprietary constraints of NASA-Ames ResearchCenter and the pilots’ respective airlines. Additionally, in-the-cockpit video recording of allcrews was obtained. This information might be useful for additional study of pilot head-inversus head-out positioning and point of regard.2

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005Aircraft performance data collection variables included the following:DISTANCE TO TOUCHDOWNGROUND SPEEDHORIZONTAL DEVIATIONHEIGHT ABOVE GROUNDCALIBRATED AIRSPEEDROLL EULER ANGLEPITCH EULER ANGLESIMULATOR TIMEPRESSURE ALTITUDEVERTICAL SPEED OF A/CLP ROTOR SPEEDA/C LATITUDEA/C LONGITUDERADIO ALTITUDECAP ELEVATOR FOKKER POSITIONF/O ELEVATOR FOKKER POSITIONOUTBOARD ELEVATOR ANGLEINBOARD ELEVATOR ANGLECAP AILERON FOKKER POSITIONF/O AILERON FOKKER POSITIONOUTBOARD AILERON (L/R)INBOARD AILERON (L/R)RUDDER PEDAL POSITIONRUDDER ANGLE (UPPER/LOWER)THROTTLE LEVER ANGLEHEADING EULER ANGLESTABLIZER ANGLETOTAL ENGINE THRUSTON GROUND FLAGEVENT MARKER COUNTER2.0.HUMAN FACTORS EVALUATION2.1.GENERALThe Human Factors (HF – Human Performance and Limitation) elements of EAT operations arecentered on the visual scene. This includes aspects of the human visual system, acquisitioncapabilities, and limitations. We are very interested in analyzing how aircrews develop visualacquisition strategies and how potential limitations (human, environmental and aircraft design)might impact those capabilities and effect normal operations.3

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005Specific to this study, we investigated strategies for dealing with discrimination between aircrafton an EAT and aircraft that may be crossing/incurring the active runway, given certain maskingbarrier dimensions and depressions of EAT elevation.2.2.METHODOLOGYBased upon DFW’s airport runway and taxiway structure, EATs are proposed to be constructedat approximately 2,650’ past the Departure End of the Runway (DER)(Attachment 1). Themasking barrier was simulated to limit the departing crew’s visual acquisition of end-aroundaircraft. In all scenarios, the barrier was placed 1,100’ from the DER at a width of 350’ on eitherside of the extended runway centerline (700’ total). Various barrier heights and depressiondepths were used, in an attempt to answer the following three questions:1. Does masking the EAT aircraft result in improved discrimination between EATand crossing/incurring aircraft?2. Is there a difference between masking EAT aircraft with a barrier or masking witha depression?3. Is there a difference in masking effectiveness between the two tested mask heights?The variables and scenarios used during the simulation are provided in Table 1.Following an evaluation of a similar proposed EAT at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta InternationalAirport (KATL), the entire evaluation of DFW’s proposal was conducted over two separatestudies. The first study was conducted through a joint effort with American Airlines and NASAAmes research center using full-motion, level D simulators in Dallas-Fort Worth and MountainView, CA, respectively. During that study, the results indicated that a problem of aircraftdiscrimination existed, prompting a need for further testing. Those further-on studies andsubsequent results are explained below.The masking evaluation of DFW’s proposed EAT was divided into two separate phases, eachdescribed below:Phase I - Modeling of various percentages of EAT aircraft masking, using low-levelPC-based graphics.This study employed the use of actual photographs of various runways at DFW from aircraftdeparture positions and heights with actual aircraft photographs superimposed on the runwayphotos. The superimposed aircraft were scaled to represent aircraft in various stages of maskingand at specified distances from the observer. An example is at Attachment 2.The simulation used a combination of barrier height and ground depression at the farthest pointof the EAT.4

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005NOTE: Phase I was completed on February 11, 2005 at the FAA Southwest RegionHeadquarters in Fort Worth, TX. Five, FAA, Group IV type-rated pilots were given 38total scenarios. Each scenario contained either three or four aircraft, in various combinationson either the EAT or crossing the runway.Findings were as follows:¾ Evaluator observations point to a difference between both the barrier/no-barrier andthe EAT depression/no depression conditions.¾ Pilot comments indicate that the problem of discerning aircraft on either the EAT or acrossing was exacerbated during night conditions.¾ There appeared to be a problem in finding and using available monocular cues indepth perception during the no-barrier conditions when either the crossing or EATaircraft was centered on the runway.¾ Some pilots waited until the aircraft reached the near edge of the barrier beforemaking a definitive declaration of whether an aircraft was crossing or on the EAT,while other pilots made their declarations prior to the barrier.¾ From an observer standpoint, there did not appear to be a major distinction betweenthe engine-masked barrier height versus the passenger window-masked barrier height.Phase II - Modeling of various percentages of EAT aircraft masking, using a Level D, fullmotion simulator.Our previous Proof-of-Concept demonstration (Reisweber, 2004) revealed that pilots do, in fact,have a problem discriminating with certainty, whether an aircraft is on the EAT or crossing onany one of the established taxiways. We believed that some form of masking of EAT aircraftmight mitigate this problem. In other words, the logical conclusion that we drew from the postDFW level D simulator Demonstration analysis was that if we masked (hid from view) someportion of the EAT aircraft, the pilot would be better able to recognize, with a higher degree ofcertainty, the difference between any aircraft that is crossing the runway as an incursion aircraftversus an EAT aircraft. We validated this hypothesis during Phase I of this evaluation. Throughthe present study, we sought to determine what percentage of the EAT aircraft should be maskedor obscured to ensure complete conspicuousness and discrimination of aircraft on the EAT orcrossing the runway.This was partially substantiated by our test of another EAT proposal at Atlanta (Reisweber,2004), where, through a natural depression at the EAT’s location, a large Group IV aircraft ismore than 80% obscured or masked. While there actually were no crossing aircraft in that study,pilots could not detect aircraft on the EAT until they were well past rotation speed (Vr) duringtakeoff and aircraft position was well above the EAT.5

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005We made the inference that pilots confirmed that the aircraft were on the EAT because therewere no aborted takeoffs during that simulation, which suggests that pilots did not mistake anyof the EAT aircraft for crossing/incurring aircraft.The present flight simulation study took place in the Level D, FAA certified B-747-400 FlightSimulator, located at the NASA-Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA. Two, 8-hourdata collection sessions were planned, for a total of 16 hours.The schedule for the simulation is presented below:Morning Session – March 29, 2005:First Crew BriefingSession 1 and DebriefSecond Crew BriefingSession 2 and DebriefThird Crew BriefingSession 3 and DebriefLUNCH -0730 - 08000800 – 09000900 – 09300930 - 10301030 - 11001100 - 12301230-1300Afternoon Session – March 29, 2005:Fourth Crew BriefingSession 4 and DebriefFifth Crew BriefingSession 5 and Debrief1300 – 13301330 - 14301430 – 15001500 - 1630Morning Session – March 30, 2005:Sixth Crew BriefingSession 6 and DebriefSeventh Crew BriefingSession 7 and DebriefEighth Crew BriefingSession 8 and Debrief0730 - 08000800 – 09000900 – 09300930 - 10301030 - 11001100 - 1230LUNCH -1230-1300Afternoon Session – March 30, 2005:Ninth Crew BriefingSession 9 and DebriefTenth Crew BriefingSession 10 and Debrief1300 – 13301330 - 14301430 – 15001500 – 16306

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005Five separate flight crews were used during each eight-hour period, resulting in a pilotassessment group of twenty pilots. Participating pilots were drawn from the airline/commercialpilot population. The pilot mix and flight experience varied across age, aircraft type and hours offlight experience. FAA and ALPA pilots were invited to participate as part of the subject pool.Several FAA pilots were present, but did not participate as subjects. Official ALPA pilotrepresentatives were not present. NOTE: Many of the pilot participants were members ofALPA, however, no one officially representing the organization was present. Given theconceptual versus procedural nature of these sessions, it was preferred, but not required, to havepilots who were qualified in-type. As a minimum, we established that having at least onecrewmember be qualified in-type for each crew would be sufficient. We fulfilled this criterionfor all but two crews. However, all crewmembers were qualified in like heavy aircraft.Each flight crew (Captain (CP) and First Officer (FO)) conducted 20 scenarios (with the CP andFO alternating Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Not Flying (PNF) duties after each run) under variousconditions listed in Table 1. Pilots received a thorough pre-flight briefing including an exchangeof questions and answers with FAA evaluators. They were informed that the simulator sessionwas solely for Human Factors evaluation and limited to operational procedural data collectionand they would not be evaluated in any way with regard to their airmen certificate privileges(Figure 1).The following conditions and procedures applied:¾ The Level D Simulator was set to an eye level equivalent to a B-747.¾ Atmospheric conditions were preset to a standard day (15ºC/59ºF and 29.92).¾ The simulator was programmed with the first aircraft in each scenario transitioning on theEAT. That aircraft was a Group IV aircraft (in this case, a Boeing 777) negotiating theEAT; the Second Aircraft was either another Boeing 777 aircraft negotiating the EAT oran aircraft Crossing the active runway at taxiway ER (a Boeing 767) (Table 1).¾ Landing Lights for crossing aircraft were off.¾ When used, the barrier was illuminated during night scenarios.¾ All take-offs were at a relatively high gross take-off weight.¾ Flight procedures and aircraft configuration were per company policy. When crews wereof a heterogeneous company mix, usually the CP made final decisions. NOTE: Somecrews were Captain only aborts and some were Captain or FO aborts. In other crewinstances, the crews decided before they entered the simulator whether the aborts wouldbe Captain only or whether they would be Captain or FO.¾ Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications were simulated by FAA evaluators or localsimulation controllers. NOTE: ATC communications remained constant across all7

End Around Taxiway (EAT) at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)International AirportDOT-FAA-AFS-420-12June 2005scenarios/crews and were not “free-flowing.” As such, ATC did not intervene duringthose scenarios if a runway incursion occurred.¾ Basic ATIS information was provided to the flight crew prior to each run per Table 1.¾ Each run was considered complete when airborne, gear-up and climbing (approximately1,500’AGL or over the top of the EAT. At this point, the simulator was frozen and re positioned to RWY 17R in preparation for the next trial.¾ EAT lighting was observable and crew comments concerning it were noted¾ Crews were instructed to verbally indicate whether the second aircraft within their visualfield was a “Crossing Aircraft” or “End-Around Aircraft.” This response was requiredas-soon-as-possible prior to V1¾ Crew responses were made by either the pilot flying (PF) or pilot not-flying (PNF).NOTE: This was a collective crew response.¾ Observers noted Airspeed at time of callout by depressing an Event Marker Button thatstamped that point on the data stream. In addition, as a backup, observers noted airspeedat the time of “callout” and recorded it manually.¾ A very short, informal de-brief to gather valuable comments from the crew’s perspectivetook place immediately after the crew completed the 20 scenarios (Figure 2).¾ This evaluation was not intended to evaluate TERPS, or any other regulation or FAAobstruction or aircraft performance criteria.2.3.SIMULATION SCENARIOSFour distinct, independent variables were manipulated durin

DOT-FAA-AFS-440-12. Safety Study Report on Aircraft Discrimination and . Federal Aviation Administration Flight Operations Simulation and Analysis Branch P 0. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 . DOT-FAA-AFS-420-12 June 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) proposes the construction and operation .

Related Documents:

Skip Counting Hundreds Chart Skip Counting by 2s, 5s and 10s to 100 Counting to 120 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Count by 2 #1 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Tapir Count by 2 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Antelope Count by 2 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Count by 2 #2 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Count by 2 #3 Dot-to-Dot Zoo: Count by 3 Connect the Dots by 5!

FAA-H-8083-3 Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-6 Advanced Avionics Handbook FAA-H-8083-9 Aviation Instructor's Handbook FAA-H-8083-15 Instrument Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-16 Instrument Procedures Handbook FAA-H-8083-25 Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge FAA-H-8083-30 Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook— General FAA-H-8083 .

4 References Australian Food Standards AFS 3.2Food Preparation AFS 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs AFS 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements AFS 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment AFS/NZFS 322, 5.14Handwashing Facilities Australian Standards AS 1221-1997 Fire Hose Reels AS1319-1994Safety signs for the occupational environment AS1428.1-2001Design for access and mobility

ISIS/AFS USER GUIDE, VOL. I (01/98) 3 - 1 Chapter 3 - The AFS Chart of Accounts Overview The AFS codes defined in your installation's master tables are used to identify and classify all financial data (transactions) stored in AFS. For standard accounting transactions, codes definin

From: Vantrees, Stephen (FAA) stephen.vantrees@faa.gov Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:17 AM To: White, Peter (FAA) peter.white@faa.gov Cc: Vantrees, Stephen (FAA) stephen.vantrees@faa.gov Subject: Fw: Actions from 3/12/2020 Meeting: AVS/ATO Executive Coordination on NASA/General Atomics SIO

FAA-H-8083-9 Aviation Instructor’s Handbook FAA-S-8081-4 Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards FAA-S-8081-12Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards FAA-S-8081-14Private Pilot Practical Test Standards FAA-H-8083-15Instrument Flying Handbook FAA/AS

left-hand keys contain the following: Dot 1 under the index finger, Dot 2 under the middle finger, dot 3 under the ring finger, and dot 7 under the little finger, while the right-hand contains: Dot 4 under the index finger, Dot 5 under the middle finger, Dot 6 under the ring finger, and Dot 8 under the little finger. These keys are used to .

5 SUGGESTED READINGS Smith, G.M. 1971. Cryptogamic Botny. Vol.I Algae & Fungi. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co., New Delhi. Sharma, O.P. 1992.