Identifying Training Deficiencies in Military Pilots by Applying the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System

• Autorzy: Li W. C. , Harris D.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Without accurate analysis, it is difficult to identify training needs and develop the content of training programs required for preventing aviation accidents. The human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) is based on Reason's system-wide model of human error. In this study, 523 accidents from the Republic of China Air Force were analyzed in which 1762 human errors were categorized. The results of the analysis showed that errors of judgment and poor decision-making were commonly reported amongst pilots. As a result, it was concluded that there was a need for military pilots to be trained specifically in making decisions in tactical environments. However, application of HFACS also allowed the identification of systemic training deficiencies within the organization further contributing to the accidents observed.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

accident investigation; error analysis; human error; human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS); training development

PL

piloci samolotów; czynnik ludzki; klasyfikacja; przyczyna wypadku; wojsko; badanie wypadków; błędy ludzkie; trening

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 19, No. 1
• Strony: 3--18
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Li W. C.

• Psychology Department, National Defense University, Taipei City, Taiwan (Republic of China)

autor

Harris D.

• HFI Solutions, UK

Bibliografia

• 1.Branson RK, Rayner GT, Cox L, Furman JP, King FJ, Hannum WH. Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: executive summary and model. Tallahasee, FL, USA: Center for Educational Technology, Florida State University; 1975. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a019488.pdf.
• 2.Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK, editors. A guide to task analysis. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1992.
• 3.Patrick J. Training. In: Tsang PS, Vidulich MA, editors. Principles and practice of aviation psychology. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2003. p. 397–434.
• 4.Reason JT. Human error. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press; 1990.
• 5.Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. A human error analysis of general aviation controlled flight into terrain accidents occurring between 1990–1998 (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-03/4). Washington, DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration; 2003. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from: http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/cami/0304.pdf.
• 6.Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 2003.
• 7.Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. Human factors analysis of postaccident data: applying theoretical taxonomies of human error. Int J Av Psychol. 1997;7(1):67–81.
• 8.Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. The human factors analysis and classification system – HFACS (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-00/7). Washington DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration; 2000. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from: http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/humanfactors_classAnly.pdf.
• 9.Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. Applying the human factors analysis and classification system to the analysis of commercial aviation accident data. In: Jensen RS, editor. Eleventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 2001.
• 10.Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. Human error perspectives in aviation. Int J Av Psychol. 2001;11(4):341–57.
• 11.Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: application of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001;72(11):1006–16.
• 12.Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. Applying reason: the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Human Factors and Aerospace Safety. 2001;1(1):59–86.
• 13.Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. HFACS analysis of military and civilian aviation accidents: a North American comparison. In: Proceedings of International Society of Air Safety Investigators, Australia, Queensland. Sterling, VA, USA. International Society of Air Safety Investigators; 2004. p. 2–8.
• 14.Dekker SWA. The re-invention of human error. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety. 2001;1(1):247–66.
• 15.Diehl A. The effectiveness of training programs for preventing aircrew error. In: Jensen RS, editor. Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 1991. vol. 2, p. 640–55.
• 16.Jensen RS. The boundaries of aviation psychology, human factors, aeronautical decision making, situation awareness, and crew resource management. Int J Av Psychol. 1994;7(4):259–67.
• 17.Klein GA. Analysis of situation awareness from critical incident reports. In: Endsley MR, Garland DJ, editors. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2000. p. 45–62.
• 18.Diehl A. Human performance/system safety issues in aircraft accident investigation and prevention. In: Jensen RS, editor. Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 1989. vol. 2, p. 838–47.
• 19.Feggetter AJ. The development of an intelligent human factors data base as an aid for the investigation of aircraft accidents. In: Jensen RS, editor. Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 1991. vol. 2, p. 324–9.
• 20.Harle PG. investigation of human factors: the link to accident prevention. In: McDonald N, Johnston R, Fuller R, editors. Applications of psychology to the aviation system. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 1985. p. 101–7.
• 21.Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science; 1998.
• 22.Hunter DR, Baker RM. Reducing accidents among general aviation pilots through a national aviation safety program. In: Hayward BJ, Lowe AR, editors. The Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 2000. vol. 1, p. 63–72.
• 23.Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 1997.
• 24.Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Crew resource management – flight crew. Temporary guidance leaflet 5 (JAR-OPS). Administrative and guidance material (Section 4 – Operations). Hoofdorp, The Netherlands: JAA; 1998.
• 25.van Avermaete JAG. NOTECHS: Nontechnical skill evaluation in JAR-FCL (NLR-TP-98518). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: National Aerospace Laboratory; 2008. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from: http://www.simulationaustralia.org.au/archive/simtect/2005/NOTECHS_report.pdf.
• 26.Ikomi PA, Boehm-Davis D, Holt RW, Incalcaterra KA. Jump seat observations of advanced crew resource management (ACRM) Effectiveness. In: Jensen RS, Cox B, Callister JD, Lavis R, editors. Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 1999. vol. 1, p. 292–7.
• 27.Diehl A. The effectiveness of training programs for preventing aircrew error. In: Jensen RS, editor. Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH, USA: Ohio State University; 1991. vol. 2, p. 640–55.
• 28.Endsley MR. A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. Int J Av Psychol. 1993;3(2):157–68.
• 29.Klein GA. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In: Klein GA, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE, editors. Decision making in action: models and methods. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex; 1993. p. 138–47.
• 30.Klein G. The current status of the naturalistic decision making framework. In: Flin R, Salas E, Strub M, Martin L, editors. Decision making under stress: emerging themes and applications. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 1997. p. 11–28.
• 31.Li WC, Harris D. The evaluation of the effect of a short aeronautical decisionmaking training program for military pilots. Int J Av Psychol. 2008;18(2):135–52.
• 32.Buch G, Diehl A. An investigation of the effectiveness of pilot judgment training. Hum Factors. 1984;26(5):557–64.
• 33.Connolly TJ, Blackwell BB, Lester LF. A simulator-based approach to training in aeronautical decision making. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1989;60(1):50–2.
• 34.Li WC, Harris D. Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77(10):1056–61.
• 35.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.
• 36.Gaur D. Human factors analysis and classification system applied to civil aircraft accidents in India. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005;76(5):501–5.
• 37.Li WC, Harris D, Yu CS. Routes to failure: analysis of 41 civil aviation accidents from the Republic of China using the human factors analysis and classification system. Acc Anal Prev. 2008;40(2):426–34.
• 38.International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Safety management manual. 2nd ed. (Document No. 9859, AN/474). Montreal, QC, Canada: ICAO; 2009. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from: http://www.icao.int/safety/ism/Guidance%20Materials/DOC_9859_FULL_EN.pdf.