Human factors engineering and aviation safety practices

Human Factors Engineering

Documented evidence shows that human error contributes at least seventy percent of commercial aircraft hull-loss accidents. Even as being linked with flight operations, human error has turned into a major issue in air traffic management and maintenance practices. At Boeing, professionals on human factors work with pilots, mechanics and engineers to employ the most up-to-date knowledge regarding the connection between the condition of commercial airplanes and human performance. This enables operators to increase efficiency and enhance safety in their every day operations.

The expression "human factors" has progressively become more popular because commercial aviation businesses have become fully cognizant that human error, instead of mechanical breakdown, causes a majority of aviation incidents and accidents. Human factors, if taken in a narrow manner, are seen to be synonymous with maintenance resource management (MRM) or crew resource management (CRM). Nevertheless, it is wider in its scope and knowledge base. As a concept, human factors entails gathering information regarding human limitations, abilities and other attributes and applying it to machines, jobs, tools, tasks, environments and systems to produce effective, comfortable and safe human use. Within the context of aviation, the field of human factors is committed to enhance understanding of how humans can most efficiently and safely be incorporated with the current technology. The understanding is afterward translated into training, design, procedures or policies to enable humans better their performance.

Aviation Safety

In general, aviation has numerous problems that affect daily operations. These problems include accidents, bad maintenance practices, faulty training, SOPs as well as incidents. Formerly, the machine faults were blamed for these problems. Nowadays, with research and inspecting, it has been shown that more problems are attributable to human error relative to those caused by machine faults. Since WWII ended, issues of human factors have turn out to be a great concern in aviation safety. Approximately, 90% to 95% of aviation incidents and accidents have been arguably been a result of human factors. Human factors is an across-the-board endeavor to amass data regarding human limitations as well as capabilities and apply the data to systems, equipment, facilities, software, jobs, procedures, training, environments, personnel management and staffing to create comfortable, safe, effective and ergonomic human performance.

Objective

This project aims at developing an evaluation document on a particular HFE problem by use of the most current information available.

Approach

Currently, the FAA is endeavoring to incorporate human factors into all aviation aspects where safety is a key issue. Resultantly, the FAA issued a human factors policy, named FAA order 9550.8, which says that "Human factors shall be incorporated into the planning and implementation of the functions of all activities and elements of FAA related to system operations and system acquisitions. This will be done in a systematic or consistent manner." FAA shall strive to accentuate human factor considerations to make the most of the relative strengths of machines and people while improving system performance. The considerations shall be incorporate during the initial stages of FAA projects. The FAA has become cognizant that mostly, a majority of people think of a project or system in terms of the tangibles like equipment, software and hardware. A good number of people never consider the product's end user, the person. Because of that, as systems are being designed, different abilities and aptitudes are never taken into account. The FAA is fighting against this prevalent thought pattern by introducing what is called "Total System Performance." This is simply a measure of probability or possibility. The probability that the whole system will work properly, when it is availed, is the probability that the software/hardware will work well, multiplied by the probability that the working environment is not going to lower the quality of the system operation, and multiplied by the probability that the user will perform properly.

Problem

System failure -- mechanical problems

Scientific observation has shown that a system can operate faultlessly in a laboratory, demonstration site, test environment and then fail to work properly when a human being gets into the loop as the operator. Therefore, human factors have to be considered to compensate for this reality, and they ought to be incorporated into new systems. When that is done, performance and accuracy will increase, while performance time will decrease. Safety will be enhanced. A study by FAA has shown that devising systems to meliorate human performance is safe and cost effective when done in the early developmental stages of a project.

There are a number of possible human factors that ought to be considered during the development stages and research. These are health and safety, functional design, display and controls, work space, display presentation, information requirements,

communications, aural/visual alerts, environment and anthropometrics.

Issues of morale and productivity

Apart from the major impact on morale and productivity, there are other significant reasons why a company ought to consider carefully prior to cutting training budgets. Companies that offer continuing training and education demonstrate that they can invest well in their employees and that the link between the employees and the companies is a two-party relationship. This has a positive impact on loyalty. Loyal employees work very hard and thus increase productivity. They remain in the company much longer and this reduces training as well as hiring costs, and also cuts down possible liabilities from discontented workers.

Lack of proper management of error

In accidents and incidents related to both maintenance procedures and flight operations, failure to abide by procedures is common. Nonetheless, the aviation industry does not provide insight into the reason behind such errors. Up to now, the industry has not developed a consistent and systematic tool for looking into such incidents and accidents. To address this issue, Boeing has devised human factors tools to help identify with the reasons behind the errors and come up with suggestions for methodical improvements.

Among those developed, two tools work on the philosophy that when airline staff (either mechanics or flight crew) make errors, contributory factors within the work environment are a component of the causal chain. In order to avert such errors in the future, the contributory factors have to be identified and, possibly, be mitigated or eliminated. The tools are:

Maintenance Error Decision Aid.

Procedural Event Analysis Tool.

Boeing -- crashes, design process, solutions

The Tenerife disaster, which took place on the 27 of March back in 1977, continues to be the biggest accident in aviation history due to the greatest quantity of airliner passenger deaths. A total of 583 people died when the KLM Boeing 747 tried to take-off without attaining official clearance first, and ended up colliding with a taxiing Pan Am 747 at Los Rodeos Airport terminal around the island of Tenerife, Spain. Both of the aircrafts underwent complete annihilation and while there were no children in the KLM aircraft, a total of 61 from the 396 people and crew around the Pan Am aircraft made it. Pilot error was the main cause because the KLM captain thought he had received clearance for takeoff because of a communication lapse or misinterpretation. An additional cause for this accident was the dense fog which primarily menat that the KLM flight crew was not able to determine the Pan Am aircraft around the runway until immediately just before the collision (Freissinet, 2013).

Similarly, Russia is one country that has witnessed a string of deadly crashes recently. Some happen to be attributed to using aging aircraft, but skillfully developed reports and investigations indicate many other problems, including poor crew training, falling apart international airports, poor government controls and common neglect of safety within the quest for profits (Crossley and Edwards, 2013).

The recent fatal airliner crash was in December, when the Russian-made Tupolev owned by Red-colored Wings air travel careered from the runway at Moscow's Vnukovo airport terminal, folded across a snowy area and then crashed in to the slope of the nearby highway, smashing into pieces and then catching fire. Researchers say equipment failure triggered the crash, which wiped out five people (Crossley and Edwards, 2013).

Also, a 2011 crash in Yaroslavl that wiped out 44 people together with a professional hockey team was attributed to pilot error. And Russian researchers discovered that the aircraft pilots in 2 crashes that wiped out 10 and 47 people recently were intoxicated (Crossley and Edwards, 2013).

In spite of rapid advancements in technology, human beings are at the end of the day in charge of ensuring the safety and success of the airmanship. Humans have to continually be flexible, knowledgeable, and efficient as well as dedicated as they make good judgment. In the meantime, the aviation industry keeps on making major investments in equipment, systems and training that have long-run entailments. Since technology keeps on evolving quicker than the capacity to envisage how human beings will work with it, the aviation industry cannot depend much on intuition and experience any more to direct decisions concerning human performance. Rather, a well-grounded scientific foundation is required for evaluating human performance entailments in training, procedures and design, just like the way sound aerodynamic engineering is required in the development of a new wing.

Boeing -- Design Process

To address this issue, Boeing has employed human factor specialists. Most of these experts are also mechanics or pilotsfrom1960s. Originally, the group comprising thirty specialists centered upon flight deck design. Nowadays, they consider a wider range of factors like human-computer interface design, human performance, cognitive psychology, visual perception, physiology and ergonomics. When these things are collectively considered, the knowledge leads to the development of Boeing airplanes design as well as support products that enable human beings give their best in terms of performance as they compensate for their innate limitations.

Since improvement of human performance can make it possible for the aviation industry to cut the rate of commercial aviation accidents, a lot of focus is on designing procedures for both maintenance technicians and flight crews, as well as developing good human-airplane interfaces. In addition, Boeing keeps on examining human performance throughout the airplane to meliorate maintainability, usability, comfort and reliability. Besides, human factors experts take part in developing tools and methods to enable operators better deal with human error. They also assess operational safety. These duties necessitate the experts to work closely with safety experts, engineers, cabin crew, mechanics, test pilots as well as training pilots to appropriately incorporate human factors into all the Boeing airplane designs. Their major roles include addressing human factors in relation to aviation safety.

Analysis/Evaluation of the design

In addition to other factors, ergonomics plays a huge role in reducing human error in avionics. In the U.S., the branch of knowledge of human factors and ergonomics is believed to have developed during the Second World War, even though the first happenings that led to its formation can be said to be the turn of the twentieth century. Before the Second World War, the focus was to develop the human being to work well with the machine by trial and error, rather than designing machines to work well with the human being. A lot of the ergonomic advances and human factors arose from the desire to properly put up the needs of the military aviation community. During the start of the First World War, the initial conflict to use the freshly devised aircraft in combat called for techniques to quickly pick and prepare competent pilots. This led to the start of aero-medical research as well as the development of aviation psychology.

Even though there were major efforts during the time, Meister (1999) asserts that the impulsion for developing the field of study was never met owing to a lack of "personnel and critical mass of technology just like during the Second World War." There was reduced research during the period between the First World War and Second World War even though there were a number of achievements. Aero-medical research led to advances in labs put up at Wright Field (Ohio) as well as Brooks Air Force Base (Texas). These labs carried out research that concentrated on additional identification of the traits of successful pilots. They also undertook to determine the effects of environmental stressors on flight performance. Additionally, the human body measurement, another area study, was employed in designing airplanes during the same time. According to Forbes (1939), automobile driving behavioral research was carried out in the private sector as well.

The eruption of the Second World War, and the two intrinsic needs it brought forth, acted as the catalyst for bringing the human factors and ergonomics discipline into existence. First, there was the need to employ as well as mobilize huge numbers of women and men: it would virtually be unfeasible to pick people to fill particular jobs. Because of that, the focus changed to develop for capabilities of people, while minimizing the unhelpful outcomes of their limitations. Second, the Second World War saw the tipping point in which advances in technology had eventually outpaced the capability of individuals to compensate and adapt to poor designs. This manifested itself in airplane accidents caused by very competent pilots due to problems with instrument displays and control configurations. In addition, motivated radar operators missed enemy contacts. Experimental psychologists had to be retrained to look into these issues by making use of lab techniques to work out applied problems. As a result, the human factors and ergonomics field of study was born, although the individuals concerned did not realize it during that time.

The two decades that followed the conclusion of the Second World War witnessed the continuance of research sponsored by military, mostly driven by the Cold War. The military research labs set up for the duration of the war were expanded and new ones were set up by the Navy (Naval Electronics Laboratory), the Air Force (Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center) and the Army (Human Engineering Laboratory). Universities set up labs as well, with the support of funding from the government, including those at the Ohio State University (Laboratory of Aviation Psychology) in 1949 and University of Illinois (Aviation Psychology Laboratory) in 1946. The private sector witnessed the creation of human factors and ergonomics groups in companies concerned with aviation, communication and electronics. The most important professional organization concerned with human factors and ergonomics practitioners in the United States, the Human Factors Society, was created in 1957.At least ninety people attended the opening annual meeting. Its name was, however, changed to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (1992).

At present, the society's membership has grown to at least 4500 members most of whom take part in student and local chapters, one or several of the twenty-three technical groups and attend the annual meeting. The beginning of the mid-1960s witnessed continued growth of the discipline and development of previously established fields. Furthermore, it expanded into other fields such as adaptive technology (2000s), the Internet & automation (1990s),nuclear power plants & weapon systems (1980s); computer software (1970s); computer hardware (1960s), and many others. In recent times, new fields of interest have come up including nanoergonomics, neuroergonomics and affect. A consistent subject matter that has come up in the recent years is the ever growing sphere of influence ergonomics and human factors have attempted to cover, even as technology grows and advances. What had began as a shallowly defined experimental psychology break off that concentrated on the human interaction with machine controls has become so huge that it covers virtually any interaction of humans with their environment. With the fast improvement in technology and science in areas like nanotechnology and biotechnology, it is interesting to ponder what freshly discovered problems ergonomics as well as human factors will be able to work out. A number of writers have theorized on the prospective directions for the subject area, including Cacciabue (2008), Brewer and Hsiang (2002), Rasmussen (2000), Vicente (2008) as well as Hancock and Diaz (2002). In the present day, just like it was when it started, HFE is still a multi-disciplinary discipline. In the U.S., the discipline developed from the behavioral sciences, such as experimental psychology, and a number of engineering disciplines. In nations within Europe, the discipline stems from the physical sciences such as human physiology. At present, people from a variety of study fields such as physiology, engineering and psychology, center their distinct abilities and skills to the study of the way people interact with technology.

Change of the design to cut down on making mistakes by humans will also reduce own failures. At Boeing, many ways have been used to redesign their practices. For the last number of decades, more reliable and safer designs have been led to the progress made in terms of increasing efficiency and reducing the rate of accidents. Advances in systems, structures and engines have jointly led to this accomplishment. In addition, design has at all times been known to be a factor in mitigating and preventing human error. At Boeing, when a new design activity is initiated, scientific knowledge, operational objectives and past operational experience determine human factors design requisites. Analytical approaches like simulator evaluations and mockup are applied to evaluate how well different design solutions satisfy these requisites. Fundamental to this endeavor is a human-focused design philosophy that has been corroborated by decades of experience and millions of flights.

This method creates a design that utilizes technology in the most appropriate manner to suit validated requirements. Foe the last few years, aircraft maintenance has gained greatly from a better focus on the way in which human factors can influence operational efficiency and safety. With regard to maintenance (flight deck design), Boeing makes use of a number of different sources to tackle human factor matters such as customer support processes, fault information team, computer-based maintainability design tools and chief mechanic participation. The mechanic serves as an advocate for repair station counterparts or as operator. The designation of a chief mechanic was as result of the realization that the maintenance crew contributes considerably to the airline operations success in both on-time performance and safety. The chief mechanic superintends the execution of all features related to maintenance. Nowadays, making use of a computer-aided three-dimensional interactive application (CATIA), Boeing uses a human model to make its determination.

Recommendations

Besides ensuring visibility and access, human factors experts carry out ergonomic evaluations to determine the capability human beings to carry out maintenance procedures under varying settings. For instance, when a machinist wants to operate on a valve from an uncomfortable position, he should apply the force enough to turn the valve within his ability in that posture. There are several other examples to illustrate this.

Considerations of maintenance human factors also resulted in the creation of the FIT, whose purpose was to promote effectual presentation of information related to maintenance, including maintenance documentation and built-in test equipment (BITE). Since then, the FIT charter has expanded to further consistency in design and maintenance processes across every model and system.

Additionally, the group is creating a human factors awareness training program to help Boeing maintenance engineers gain positively from human factors applications and principles in their work concerning customer support. Failure to adhere to procedures very common in accidents and incidents related to both maintenance procedures and flight operations. However, the industry lacks insight into why such errors occur. Up to now, the aviation industry has not got a consistent and systematic tool for looking into such kind of incidents. To meliorate this state of affairs, Boeing has designed human factors tools to assist in understanding the reasons behind the errors that take place and come up with suggestions for systematic advances.

Among the tools developed, two of them work on the philosophy that when airline crew makes errors, the work environment's contributing factors area component of the causal chain. To avert future errors, the contributing factors have to be identified mitigated or eliminated. The two tools are Maintenance Error Decision Aid and Procedural Event Analysis Tool. PEAT presumes that there must be reasons for the failure of flight crew member to have made an error or adhere to a procedure or that the crew members did not intend to fail. Established upon this premise, a trained research worker conducts an interview with the flight crew to gather comprehensive information regarding the procedural failure and the contributory factors connected with it. This exhaustive information is afterward introduced into a database for more investigation. PEAT is the earliest industry tool to concentrate on procedurally-linked case investigations in a structured and consistent way with the intention that effectual remedies can be formulated. Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) tool started as an endeavor to gather further information concerning maintenance errors. It then grew to be a project to offer a consistent process for examining contributory factors to errors and devising probable corrective actions by maintenance organizations.

The purpose of MEDA is to facilitate shift from airlines faulting maintenance personnel for their errors to scientifically probing and getting to understand contributory factors. PEAT and MEDA are established upon the philosophy that errors happen from a succession of interrelated factors. Those factors usually include incorrect or misleading information, inadequate communication, time pressure and design issues. At Boeing, maintenance human factors specialists working in conjunction with industry maintenance personnel developed the MEDA process. When it was developed, the process was tried out with eight operators working with the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. From the inception of MEDA (1996), the group concerned with maintenance of human factors at Boeing has offered on-site implementation support to at least than one hundred organizations throughout the world. Many different operators have seen significant safety advances, and several have seen significant economic gains as well as a result of decreased maintenance errors.

Conclusions

In a nutshell, human factor is indeed a very important component of enhancing the effectiveness of aerospace operations. It should never be ignored. It does not matter what happens; circumstances and situations that involve the human mind will always be there. These situations and circumstances arise from everyday stress, for instance, working hastily to complete a job as quickly and timely as possible, lack of sleep, and being overworked. This area of aviation cannot be changed completely but it is possible to improve it.