scholarly journals Analysis of Civil Aircraft Terrain Avoidance Warning System “Terrain Terrain” Issue Based on QAR Data

Author(s):  
Zuopeng Wang ◽  
Mingming Song ◽  
Mengtao Xie
1970 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-163
Author(s):  
V. J. Cox

Although it has been technologically possible for some years to give warning of ground collision hazards, the specialized radars for this purpose have been limited to military aircraft. Because of complex cost and installation problems, radar of this type have not been installed in civil aircraft.This paper discusses possible developments in civil weather radar to enable it to give a warning of ground collision hazards. The paper was presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Institute held in London on 19 November 1969 with the President in the Chair.For the purpose of this paper, ground collision is defined as an error of navigation or height management, which results in a zero ground clearance. The error can, of course, be human or instrumental but the assumption is made that the aircraft was basically capable of avoiding the hazard. There has been a tendency to associate ground collisions, particularly hill and mountain collisions, with the older piston-engined aircraft. Its importance in terms of airlines operating modern jet aircraft is not always well appreciated. It is true that the normal operating altitude of jet aircraft almost eliminates ground collision hazards in the cruise phase, but in general they suffer from a longer response time and a higher approach speed, which makes them more vulnerable in the let-down and approach phase. Since in any event the let-down and approach phase accounted for about two-thirds of the accidents with piston-engined aircraft, ground collision hazards remain a serious problem with pure jet aircraft.


2012 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkatesh Iyengar ◽  
Ibrahim Elmadfa

The food safety security (FSS) concept is perceived as an early warning system for minimizing food safety (FS) breaches, and it functions in conjunction with existing FS measures. Essentially, the function of FS and FSS measures can be visualized in two parts: (i) the FS preventive measures as actions taken at the stem level, and (ii) the FSS interventions as actions taken at the root level, to enhance the impact of the implemented safety steps. In practice, along with FS, FSS also draws its support from (i) legislative directives and regulatory measures for enforcing verifiable, timely, and effective compliance; (ii) measurement systems in place for sustained quality assurance; and (iii) shared responsibility to ensure cohesion among all the stakeholders namely, policy makers, regulators, food producers, processors and distributors, and consumers. However, the functional framework of FSS differs from that of FS by way of: (i) retooling the vulnerable segments of the preventive features of existing FS measures; (ii) fine-tuning response systems to efficiently preempt the FS breaches; (iii) building a long-term nutrient and toxicant surveillance network based on validated measurement systems functioning in real time; (iv) focusing on crisp, clear, and correct communication that resonates among all the stakeholders; and (v) developing inter-disciplinary human resources to meet ever-increasing FS challenges. Important determinants of FSS include: (i) strengthening international dialogue for refining regulatory reforms and addressing emerging risks; (ii) developing innovative and strategic action points for intervention {in addition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) procedures]; and (iii) introducing additional science-based tools such as metrology-based measurement systems.


Author(s):  
JAMES E. BROWN ◽  
CARMINE M. BERTONE ◽  
RICHARD W. OBERMAYER
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. McCandless ◽  
Robert S. McCann ◽  
Bruce R. Hilty
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document