Statement:\nDuring the last fortnight, there were three “near-miss” incidents in which two aircraft came perilously close to each other but avoided collision because the pilots reacted just in time.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. Immediately de-roster (remove from active duty pending inquiry) all six pilots involved in the incidents.\nII. Temporarily divert some flights to other airports for the next few months to decongest the airspace over the city airport.\nIII. Send the city’s air traffic controllers (ATC) for refresher courses in staggered batches so they are better prepared to handle high-pressure situations.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: Only II and III follow

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Course-of-action questions test whether proposed steps are proportionate, feasible, and directly relevant to the stated problem. Here, repeated near-miss events point to systemic stress in terminal airspace capacity and human-systems performance (pilots, ATC, procedures). Logical actions should reduce congestion risk and strengthen human factors, training, and procedures while respecting due process.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Three near-misses occurred within a fortnight in the same metropolitan airspace.
  • Pilots averted collisions “just in time.”
  • No explicit evidence of individual pilot negligence is presented; congestion/pressure is implied.


Concept / Approach:
Prefer actions that (a) immediately lower traffic density and complexity, and (b) improve ATC competence and coordination. Avoid punitive measures without investigation. Systems safety focuses on de-risking the operating context and enhancing training and procedures rather than scapegoating individuals absent facts.


Step-by-Step Solution:

1) Course I (de-roster all six pilots): Summary punishment without inquiry is not logically warranted by the statement. Pilots actually prevented collisions; causation points more toward airspace/ATC load, not proven pilot error.2) Course II (divert flights): Decongestion reduces simultaneous conflicts, controller workload, and separation errors; this is targeted and proportionate.3) Course III (ATC refresher in batches): Directly strengthens conflict detection, communication discipline, and contingency handling without shutting operations.4) Therefore, Only II and III logically follow.


Verification / Alternative check:
Common safety improvements after repeated level busts/TCAS RAs include traffic flow management (slotting, diversions), updated procedures, and recurrent training for ATC and flight crews.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / I with others: Premature and misdirected; lacks due process and may remove the very pilots who demonstrated crisis handling.• Only II or Only III: Each helps; together they better address both load and human factors.• None of these: Ignores clear, proportionate remedies.


Common Pitfalls:
Assuming punitive action equals safety; ignoring airspace capacity management.


Final Answer:
Only II and III follow.

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion