本研究使用國內某航空公司飛航操作品質保證系統所記錄之偏離標準飛行事件資料進行尾風超限進場之因素及風險分析，分析結果顯示造成尾風超限進場之因素可分為「塔台及組員」及「機場及跑道」這兩項，而機場盛行風之緣故導致在台北松山機場（6,7,8月）以及高雄小港機場（9,10,11月）發生尾風超限進場機率偏高。

　　風險分析結果顯示航機於尾風超限進場時由於對地速度提升及操作難度增加，對落地點及減速滾行距離將產生直接影響，使得減速滾行距離較正常操作時增加11％～13％。而且尾風超限進場將可能導致其他偏離標準操作事件之發生，在尾風時進場可能發生「通過跑道參考點時過高」、「落地點過長」及「平飄時間過短」等偏離標準操作事件，而尾風對飛航組員造成的影響除了操控較為困難外，飛航組員可能為了避免某些較嚴重之偏離標準操作事件而使其決策能力受到干擾。

　　初步分析結果顯示尾風確實影響飛行組員之操作精確度，建議飛行組員降落過程中遭遇尾風變化過大以及跑道狀況不良，飛行組員應考慮採取重飛動作以增進飛航安全。此外在尾風超限進場發生機率偏高之季節更需要提高警覺。

　This thesis research accessed the non-standard flight event data from the Flight Operation Quality Assurance (FOQA) system of a local airline to analyze the risk of the events of exceeding tailwind-limitation approach. 1,433 flights of a total 10,411 flights were recorded and analyzed with different degrees of exceeding tailwind limitations.

　The analysis showed that the major factors to incur the events of exceeding tailwind-limitation approach were ATC and flight crew’s decision making. And, the prevailing wind of the airports resulted a higher probability to have the exceeding events especially at Taipei Songshan Airport and Kaohsiung International Airport.

　The FOQA data indicated that airplane’s ground speed was higher and the difficulty of maneuvering the aircraft increased under tailwind. The touchdown distances were usually longer and an average increase of 11% to 13% of deceleration distances were shown. Accompanying the exceeding tailwind-limitation approach, the probabilities of having other non-standard flight events such as “height high at threshold”, “long touchdown”, and “short flare” also increased. In the approach process, the decision making of the pilots may be influenced under tailwind situation in order to avoid triggering the high-severity event of bounce landing.

　In this preliminary study, the data showed that the tailwind does have effects on the accuracy of aircraft maneuvering. It is suggested that flight crews should consider go-around under the situations of strong tailwind coupling with wet runway.

【1】Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group Market Analysis, Current Market Outlook 2005, 2005
【2】Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group Aviation Safety, Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959-2004, 2005
【3】Jaap Jan van denBosch & Harrie G. M. Bohnen, An Experimental Comparison of Alphanumeric and Iconic Formats of the Flight Mode Annunciator, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol.8, no.3, pp.335-349, 1998
【4】Knut Lande, Standardization of Flight Decks - Operational Aspects, 10th annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, pp.229-241, 1998
【5】Russel, Paul D. & Purvis, John W., Lecture Notes on Flight Safety and Accident Investigation, Workshop Held at Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, 1994
【6】Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Airplane Safety Engineering, Accident Prevention Strategies, Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents, World Wide Operations 1982-1991, 1993
【7】Helmreich, Robert L. & Merritt, Ashleigh C., Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine: National, Organizational and Professional Influences, Ashgate Publishing Limited, USA, 1998
【8】陳啟昭, 從機師族群探討組織氣候、安全氣候與組員資源管理及航務滿意度之關聯性, 國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文, 民90
【9】Yee, Y.N. & Liu, B.S., Inflight Workload Assessment: Comparison of Subjective and Physiological Measurements, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol.47, no.10, pp.1078-1084, 2003
【10】Chute, Rebecca D. & Wiener, Earl L., Cockpit-Cabin Communication: II. Shall We Tell the Pilots?, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol.6, no.3, pp.211-231, 1996
【11】Veillette, Patrick R., Controlled Flight Into Terrain Takes Highest Toll in Business Jet Operations, Flight Safety Digest, Vol.23, no.5, pp.1-47, 2004
【12】Brown, Norman M. & Moren, Charles R., Background Emotional Dynamics of Crew Resource Management: Shame Emotions and Coping Responses, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol.13, no.3, pp.269-286, 2003
【13】U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Safety: U.S. Efforts to Implement Flight Operational Quality Assurance Programs, Flight Safety Digest, Vol.17, no.7-9, pp.1-37, 1998
【14】Xie Zinan, Shu Ping, Yu Liling and Xu Xiangsong, The FOQA Project in China, 57th annual International Air Safety Seminar, pp.73-79, 2004
【15】Jacques Verrire, FOQA Contribution to Flight Safety Management, 12th annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, pp.7-12, 2000
【16】Holtom, Mike, FOQA：Aviation’s Most Important Safety Tool, 52nd annual FSF International Air Safety Seminar, pp.209-222, 1999
【17】Gerard W.H. van Es, Roelen, Alfred L.C., Kruijsen, Eric A.C. & Giesberts, Marijn K.H., SAFETY ASPECTS OF AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE ON WET AND CONTAMINATED RUNWAYS, 10th annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, pp.155-175, 1998