Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Approach Hazards Awareness
Approach Hazards Awareness
Introduction
Factor % of Events
Factors that may contribute to approach-and-
landing accidents include flight over hilly terrain,
reduced visibility, visual illusions, adverse winds, Night time 75 %
contaminated runways and/or limited approach aids.
IMC 59 %
Flight crews should be aware of the compounding
nature of these hazards during approach and Darkness or twilight 53 %
landing.
Non-precision approach or visual 53 %
approach
Statistical data
Precipitation ( rain or snow ) 50 %
Approach-and-landing is the most hazardous phase
of any flight, as illustrated by the following data: Absence of radar service 50 %
• Over the past 40 years, approach-and-landing Adverse wind (high crosswind, 33 %
accidents accounted for 55 % of total hull tail wind or wind shear)
losses.
Absence of GPWS or radio 29 %
This statistic does not show a downward trend.
altimeter
• The flight segment from the outer marker to the
Absence of letdown navaid, 21 %
runway threshold averages only 4 % of flight
approach/runway lighting or VASI
time, but accounts for 45 % of hull losses.
/ PAPI
Flight Crew
Factor % of Events
• Fatigue – reduced awareness:
− Long duty time:
Low visibility 71 %
! Long-haul operation; or,
Hilly or mountainous terrain 67 % ! Short-haul or medium-haul / multiple-
legs operation;
Table 2 • Unfamiliar airport; and/or,
CFIT Events • Unfamiliar instrument or visual approach
procedure.
• Inadequate or non-standard air traffic control • Unsecured airport (i.e., absence of airport
procedures; perimeter fences, allowing vehicles, persons or
animals to access to runway or maneuvering
• Inadequate air traffic flow management; areas);
• Mixing of IFR and VFR traffics; • No illumination of wind sock or wind “T”;
• Frequent uncontrolled VFR traffics in airport and/or,
vicinity; • Faded painting of runway and/or taxiways
• Frequency congestion / controller overload markings.
caused by high density traffic or by a single
controller operating tower and ground
frequencies; Terrain
• Absence of adequate VHF coverage in known • Trees or man-made obstacles (antennas, ...)
FIR or TMA sectors; penetrating the obstacle clearance level;
• Inadequate coordination between international • Topographical features requiring unusual
and domestic FIRs; procedures and reduced safety margins; and/or,
• Absence of or failure to use landline • Terrain features resulting in GPWS activation
communications between two close airports; during approach.
and/or,
• Absence of English language proficiency in Refer to Briefing Note 5.2 – Terrain Awareness for
ATC communications and/or use of non- expanded information.
standard phraseology.
Visual Illusions
Airport Equipment • Airport environment (black hole, ...);
• Absence of / limited / low intensity approach • Runway environment; and/or,
and runway lighting (or part of it);
• Weather conditions.
• Non-standard runway-edge lights spacing;
• Absence of ILS; Refer to Briefing Note 5.3 – Visual Illusions
Awareness for expanded information.
• ILS unusable beyond a specific point (because
of obstacles) or below a specific altitude
(because of approach over water); Visibility
• ILS without OM; • Darkness, low visibility (rain, fog, mist, haze,
• ILS without VASI/PAPI to support the visual low lighting, smoke).
segment ;
• Offset VOR/DME approach; Wind conditions
• VOR/DME with inoperative DME; • Shifting or gusty wind, crosswind or tail wind;
• VOR incorrect calibration; and/or,
• NDB known as unreliable in adverse weather • Known frequent wind shear on final approach of
conditions; specific runway under adverse weather and / or
wind conditions.
• Non-precision or circling approach with
absence of VASI / PAPI; Refer to Briefing Note 5.4 – Wind Shear
Awareness for expanded information.
• VASI/PAPI being incorrectly calibrated or
inoperative;
Associated Documents