Suppr超能文献

航空公司飞行员与仪表等级私人飞行员所涉通用航空事故比较。

A comparison of general aviation accidents involving airline pilots and instrument-rated private pilots.

机构信息

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 1 Aerospace Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 1 Aerospace Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA.

出版信息

J Safety Res. 2021 Feb;76:127-134. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2020.11.009. Epub 2020 Dec 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The extremely low accident rate for U.S air carriers relative to that of general aviation (∼1 and ∼60/million flight hours respectively) partly reflects advanced airman certification, more demanding recurrency training and stringent operational regulations. However, whether such skillset/training/regulations translate into improved safety for airline pilots operating in the general aviation environment is unknown and the aim of this study.

METHODS

Accidents (1998-2017) involving airline pilots and instrument-rated private pilots (PPL-IFR) operating non-revenue light aircraft were identified from the NTSB accident database. An online survey informed general aviation flight exposure for both pilot cohorts. Statistics used proportion testing and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

In degraded visibility, 0 and 40% (χp = 0.043) of fatal accidents involving airline and PPL-IFR airmen were due to in-flight loss-of-control, respectively. For landing accidents, airline pilots were under-represented for mishaps related to airspeed mismanagement (p = 0.036) relative to PPL-IFR but showed a dis-proportionate count (2X) of ground loss-of-directional control accidents (p = 0.009) the latter likely reflecting a preference for tail-wheel aircraft. The proportion of FAA rule violation-related mishaps by airline pilots was >2X (7 vs. 3%) that for PPL-IFR airmen. Moreover, airline pilots showed a disproportionate (χp = 0.021) count of flights below legal minimum altitudes. Not performing an official preflight weather briefing or intentionally operating in instrument conditions without an IFR flight plan represented 43% of airline pilot accidents involving FAA rule infractions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings inform safety deficiencies for: (a) airline pilots, landing/ground operations in tail-wheel aircraft and lack of 14CFR 91 familiarization regulations regarding minimum operating altitudes and (b) PPL-IFR airmen in-flight loss-of-control and poor landing speed management. Practical Applications: For PPL-IFR airmen, training/recurrency should focus on unusual attitude recovery and managing approach speeds. Airline pilots should seek additional instructional time regarding landing tail-wheel aircraft and become familiar with 14CFR 91 rules covering minimum altitudes.

摘要

简介

美国航空公司的事故率极低,相对而言,通用航空的事故率较高(分别约为 1/百万飞行小时和 60/百万飞行小时)。这部分反映了飞行员的高级认证、更严格的复训要求和严格的操作规定。然而,对于在通用航空环境中运营的航空公司飞行员来说,这种技能/培训/规定是否能提高安全性尚不清楚,这也是本研究的目的。

方法

从 NTSB 事故数据库中确定了涉及航空公司飞行员和仪表等级私人飞行员(PPL-IFR)在非盈利轻型飞机上操作的事故(1998-2017 年)。一项在线调查告知了这两个飞行员群体的通用航空飞行经历。统计数据使用比例检验和曼-惠特尼 U 检验。

结果

在能见度降低的情况下,航空公司和 PPL-IFR 飞行员的致命事故中,分别有 0%和 40%(χp=0.043)是由于飞行中失去控制。对于着陆事故,与 PPL-IFR 相比,航空公司飞行员在与空速管理不当相关的事故中所占比例较低(p=0.036),但发生地面失去方向控制事故的比例却不成比例(2X)(p=0.009),后者可能反映了对后三点式飞机的偏好。航空公司飞行员因违反 FAA 规定而导致的事故比例是 PPL-IFR 飞行员的两倍多(7 比 3%)。此外,航空公司飞行员的飞行高度低于法定最低高度的比例不成比例(χp=0.021)。不进行正式的飞行前天气简报或故意在无 IFR 飞行计划的情况下在仪表条件下操作,占航空公司飞行员违反 FAA 规定的事故的 43%。

结论

这些发现为以下方面的安全缺陷提供了信息:(a)航空公司飞行员、尾轮飞机的着陆/地面操作以及对 14 CFR 91 中关于最低运行高度的规定不熟悉;(b)PPL-IFR 飞行员在飞行中失去控制和不良的着陆速度管理。实际应用:对于 PPL-IFR 飞行员,培训/复训应侧重于特殊姿态恢复和管理进近速度。航空公司飞行员应寻求额外的教学时间,了解尾轮飞机的着陆,并熟悉 14 CFR 91 中关于最低高度的规定。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验