A fault tree-based approach for aviation risk analysis considering mental workload overload

• Autorzy: Che Haiyang , Zeng Shengkui , You Qidong , Song Yueheng , Guo Jianbin

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17531/ein.2021.4.7

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Many lives and aircrafts have been lost due to human errors associated with mental workload overload (MWLOL). Human errors are successfully considered in existing Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) methods. However, MWLOL is considered through Performance Shaping Factors indirectly and its information is hidden in FT construction, which is not conducive to analyze the root causes of human errors and risks. To overcome this difficulty, we develop a risk analysis method where Multiple Resources Model (MRM) is incorporated into FTA methods. MRM analyzes mental workload by estimating the resources used during performing concurrent tasks, probably including abnormal situation handling tasks introduced by basic events in FT. Such basic events may cause MWLOL and then trigger corresponding human error events. A MWLOL gate is proposed to describe MWLOL explicitly and add these new relationships to traditional FT. This new method extends previous FTA methods and provides a more in-depth risk analysis. An accident, a helicopter crash in Maryland, is analyzed by the proposed method.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

risk analysis; human error; mental workload overload; multiple resources model; fault tree analysis

• Wydawca: Polskie Naukowo-Techniczne Towarzystwo Eksploatacyjne
• Czasopismo: Eksploatacja i Niezawodność
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 23, no. 4
• Strony: 646--658
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 55 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Che Haiyang

• School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

autor

Zeng Shengkui

• School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

autor

You Qidong

• School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

autor

Song Yueheng

• Science and Technology on Complex Aviation System Simulation Laboratory, Beijing 100070, China

autor

Guo Jianbin

• School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Bibliografia

• 1. Abilio Ramos M, Utne I B, Mosleh A. Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators’ tasks and human failure events. Safety Science 2019;116:33-44, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.038.
• 2. Blom H, Daams J, Nijhuis H. Human cognition modelling in ATM safety assessment: Nat Aero Lab 2001. NLR, NLR-TP-2001-053, 2001, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228817723. Bolton M L, Molinaro K A,
• 3. Houser A M. A formal method for assessing the impact of task-based erroneous human behavior on system safety. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2019;188:168-180, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.010.
• 4. Cline P. Human Error Analysis of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Accidents Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Journal of aviation/aerospace education and research 2018;1(28):43-62, http://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.2018.1758.
• 5. DiDomenico A, Nussbaum M A. Effects of different physical workload parameters on mental workload and performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2011;41(3):255-260, http://doi.org/10.1016/j. ergon.2011.01.008.
• 6. Doytchev D E, Szwillus G. Combining task analysis and fault tree analysis for accident and incident analysis: A case study from Bulgaria. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009;41(6):1172-1179, http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.aap.2008.07.014.
• 7. Dugan J B, Bavuso S J, Boyd M A. Dynamic fault-tree models for fault-tolerant computer systems. IEEE Transactions On Reliability 1992;41(3):363-377, http://doi.org/10.1109/24.159800.
• 8. García-Mas A, Ortega E, Ponseti J, De Teresa C, Cárdenas D. Workload and cortisol levels in helicopter combat pilots during simulated flights. Revista Andaluza de Medicina del Deporte 2015;9(1):7-11, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ramd.2015.12.001.
• 9. Gore B F, Jarvis P. Modeling the complexities of human performance. IEEE International Conference on Systems 2006, http://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2005.1571377.
• 10. Gregoriades A, Sutcliffe A. Workload prediction for improved design and reliability of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2008;93(4):530-549, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.02.001.
• 11. Hankins T C, Wilson G F. A comparison of heart rate, eye activity, EEG and subjective measures of pilot mental workload during flight. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine 1998;69(4):360, http://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1445-5994.1998.tb02982.x.
• 12. Hollnagel E. The phenotype of erroneous actions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1993;1(39):1-32, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239654361
• 13. Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 1998, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008042848-2/50010-5.
• 14. Kabir S. An overview of fault tree analysis and its application in model based dependability analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 2017;77:114-135, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.058.
• 15. Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P. Risk-based design of process systems using discrete-time Bayesian networks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2013;109:5-17, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.07.009.
• 16. Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P. Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2011;96(8):925-932, http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.012.
• 17. Kirwan B, Ainsworth L K. A Guide to Task Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis, 1992, https://doi.org/ 10.1201/b16826.
• 18. Liu C, Kramer A, Neumann S. Reliability assessment of repairable phased-mission system by Monte Carlo simulation based on modular sequence-enforcing fault tree model. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc - Maintenance and Reliability 2020;22(2):272-281, http://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2020.2.10.
• 19. Mccracken J, Aldrich T. Analyses of Selected LHX Mission Functions: Implications for Operator Workload and System Automation Goals. Defense Technical Information Center1984.
• 20. Mohaghegh Z, Mosleh A. Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical systems: Principles and theoretical foundations. Safety Science 2009;47(8):1139-1158, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.12.008.
• 21. Naderpour M, Lu J, Zhang G. An abnormal situation modeling method to assist operators in safety-critical systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2015;133:33-47, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.08.003.
• 22. Nees M A, Sharma N, Shore A. Attributions of accidents to “human error” in news stories: Effects on perceived culpability, perceived preventability, and perceived need for punishment. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2020;148:105792, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105792.
• 23. Noel J B, Bauer K W, Lanning J W. Improving pilot mental workload classification through feature exploitation and combination: a feasibility study. Computers & Operations Research 2005;32(10):2713-2730, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.03.022.
• 24. Papadimitriou E, Schneider C, Aguinaga Tello J, Damen W, Lomba Vrouenraets M, Ten Broeke A. Transport safety and human factors in the era of automation: What can transport modes learn from each other? Accident Analysis & Prevention 2020;144:105656, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105656.
• 25. Papis M, Jastrzębski D, Kopyt A, Matyjewski M, Mirosław M. Driver reliability and behavior study based on a car simulator station tests in ACC system scenarios. Ekspolatacja i Niezawodnosc - Maintenance and Reliability 2019;21(3):511-521, http://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2019.3.18.
• 26. Qingxin Z, Zhuang D, Yinxiang M. Design of target code in human-machine interface. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2007;33(06):631-634, http://doi.org/10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2007.06.001
• 27. Rosenker M V, Sumwalt R L, Hersman D A P, Higgins K O, Chealander S R. Aviation Accident Report: NYC05MA039. Washington: National Transportation Safety Board, 2007.
• 28. Ruijters E, Stoelinga M. Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools. Computer Science Review 2015;15-16:29-62, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2015.03.001.
• 29. Schulte A, Donath D, Honecker F. Human-System Interaction Analysis for Military Pilot Activity and Mental Workload Determination.: IEEE, 2015. 1375-1380, http://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2015.244.
• 30. Shappell S A, Wiegmann D A. HFACS Analysis of Military and Civilian Aviation Accidents: A North American Comparison. ISASI 2004:1-8.
• 31. Sheridan T B, Parasuraman R. Human-Automation Interaction. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 2005;1(1):89-129, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240756917.
• 32. Stanton N A. Hierarchical task analysis: Developments, applications, and extensions. Applied Ergonomics 2006;37(1):55-79, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.06.003.
• 33. Sussman D, Coplen M. Fatigue and alertness in the United States railroad industry part I: The nature of the problem. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2000;3(4):211-220, http://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(01)00005-5
• 34. Ung S. Human error assessment of oil tanker grounding. Safety Science 2018;104:16-28, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.035.
• 35. Gawron V.J. Summary of Fatigue Research for Civilian and Military Pilots. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 2015;4(1):1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/21577323. 2015.1046093
• 36. Veillette P. Helicopter Flying Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airman Testing Standards Branch, AFS-630, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125: Flight Standards Service, 2012.
• 37. Walker M, Bottaci L, Papadopoulos Y. Compositional Temporal Fault Tree Analysis. Computer Safety, Reliability, & Security, International Conference, Safecomp, Nuremberg, Germany, September2007, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-75101-4_12.
• 38. Wang P, Fang W, Guo B. A colored petri nets based workload evaluation model and its validation through Multi-Attribute Task Battery-II. Applied Ergonomics 2017;60:260-274, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo. 2016.11.013.
• 39. Wang W, Jiang X, Xia S, Cao Q. Incident tree model and incident tree analysis method for quantified risk assessment: An in-depth accident study in traffic operation. Safety Science 2010;48(10):1248-1262, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.002.
• 40. Wickens C D. Multiple Resources and Mental Workload. Human Factors; 50(3):449-455, http://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394.
• 41. Wickens C D. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2002;2(3):159-177, http://doi.org/10.1080 /1463922021012380 6
• 42. Wickens C D, Goh J, Helleberg J, Horrey W J, Talleur D A. Attentional models of multitask pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human Factors 2003;45(3):360-380, http://doi.org/ 10.1518/hfes.45.3.360.27250
• 43. Wickens C D, Hollands J G, Simon B, Parasuraman R. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. USA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2012.
• 44. Wickens C, Colcombe A. Dual-task performance consequences of imperfect alerting associated with a cockpit display of traffic information. Human Factors 2007;49(5):839-850, http://doi.org/ 10.1518/001872007X230217.
• 45. Wijayarathna P G, Maekawa M. Extending fault trees with an AND-THEN gate.: IEEE, 2000. 283-292, http://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2000.885879
• 46. Wu J, Wen H, Qi W. A new method of temporal and spatial risk estimation for lane change considering conventional recognition defects. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2020;148:105796, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105796.
• 47. Xu Z, Guo D, Wang J, Li X, Ge D. A numerical simulation method for a repairable dynamic fault tree. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc - Maintenance and Reliability 2021;23(1):34-41, http://doi.org/10.17531/ ein.2021.1.4.
• 48. Young M S, Brookhuis K A, Wickens C D, Hancock P A. State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 2015;58(1):1-17, http://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.956151.
• 49. Zarei E, Yazdi M, Abbassi R, Khan F. A hybrid model for human factor analysis in process accidents: FBN-HFACS. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2019;57:142-155, http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.11.015.
• 50. Zhang H, Zhuang D, Ma D, Sun J. Design and Evaluation of Target Icons of the Cockpit Display Interface. Packaging Engineering 2011;32(10):89-92, http://doi.org/10.3354/cr00999.
• 51. Zhang X, Qu X, Xue H, Zhao H, Li T, Tao D. Modeling pilot mental workload using information theory. The Aeronautical Journal 2019;123(1264):828-839, http://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2019.13.
• 52. Zhang Y, Zheng H, Duan Y, Meng L, Zhang L. An integrated approach to subjective measuring commercial aviation pilot workload.: IEEE, 2015. 1098-1103. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEA.2015.7334270.
• 53. Zhou J, Lei Y, Chen Y. A hybrid HEART method to estimate human error probabilities in locomotive driving process. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2019;188:80-89, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.001.
• 54. Zhou Q, Wong Y D, Loh H S, Yuen K F. A fuzzy and Bayesian network CREAM model for human reliability analysis – The case of tanker shipping. Safety Science 2018;105:149-157, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci. 2018.02.011.
• 55. Zhou T, Wu C, Zhang J, Zhang D. Incorporating CREAM and MCS into fault tree analysis of LNG carrier spill accidents. Safety Science 2017;96:183-191, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.015.