Human Factors in Aviation Safety: Causes and Solutions

Introduction

Human factors have been major causes of aviation accidents over the years. These factors include careless attitudes, fatigue, mounting pressure and stress, inadequate training, non-job-related conversations interfering with job performance, improperly functioning equipment, and noncompliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards and directives. Some incidents have resulted in no injury, while others have caused substantial injury and death. Despite safety measures implemented through technology and improved procedures, human errors remain a significant contributor to aviation accidents. The FAA has issued directives and mechanic checklists for before and after the performance of tasks to reduce the amount of human error and maintain safety within the aviation industry.

"Human error has been documented as a primary contributor to more than 70% of commercial airplane hull-loss accidents" (Higgins, n.d.). There is major concern in maintenance practices and air traffic management, which are closely related to crew resource management (CRM) and maintenance resource management (MRM). Human factors involve human abilities, limitations, and other characteristics, and how they are applied to tools, machines, systems, tasks, jobs, and environments in ways that produce safe and effective aviation operations. Humans are responsible for ensuring success and safety, as well as maintaining continued knowledge, flexibility, dedication, and efficiency. This requires a sound scientific basis for assessing performance implications in design, training, and procedure, and for exercising good judgment.

Literature Review: Human Error in Aviation

Design has been recognized as a key factor in preventing and mitigating human error. New design activity, informed by past operational experience and objectives, helps define human factor design requirements. Technology in this area draws on cognitive psychology, human performance research, physiology, visual perception, ergonomics, and human-computer interface design. Examination of procedures and human performance throughout the aircraft aims to improve usability, maintainability, reliability, and comfort. This work analyzes operational safety and develops methods and tools to help operators better manage human error. Specialists focus on flight deck design, maintainability and in-service support, error management, and passenger cabin design.

"Flight crew errors typically occur when the crew does not perceive a problem and fails to correct the error in time to prevent the situation from deteriorating" (Higgins, n.d.). In the fly-by-wire Boeing 777, visual and tactile motion cues are provided by back-driven controls to reinforce situational awareness and help crews maintain full awareness of changes in aircraft status and flight path during all phases of automated and manual flight. Flight crew communication relies on audio, visual, and tactile methods, all of which must be used appropriately. The flight controls are interconnected so that control inputs are visible to all crew members.

Airplane maintenance has benefited from increased focus on how human factors contribute to safety and operational efficiency. A variety of sources are used to address human factor issues, including chief mechanic participation, computer-based maintainability design tools, fault information teams, and customer support processes. The chief mechanic acts as an advocate for operator and repair station counterparts. The computer-aided three-dimensional interactive application (CATIA) helps design systems with mechanic ease of access and mechanic capabilities under all circumstances. Fault information teams promote consistency in maintenance processes and design across all systems and models. The primary objective of the human factors maintenance group is to implement the Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) process.

Design, Technology, and Maintenance Solutions

MEDA collects information about maintenance errors and analyzes contributing factors and possible corrective actions. Contributing factors typically include misleading or incorrect information, design issues, inadequate communication, and time pressure. They may also include procedural issues, environmental or facility conditions, equipment problems, lack of situational awareness, crew performance factors, crew coordination and communication failures, and gaps in technical knowledge, skills, and experience. The Procedural Event Analysis Tool (PEAT) is another instrument that aids in managing risks associated with flight crew procedural deviations. Additional tools for managing error include crew information requirements analysis, training aids, and improved use of automation.

Another safety measure is the Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS), which uses lightweight crushable concrete in an arrestor bed on the sides and ends of a runway to greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway by decelerating it (Aviation operators cut corners at expense of safety, Oct. 9, 2007).

Conclusion

Despite the measures in place to mitigate human error in aviation safety, a significant number of incidents continue to involve human error. These errors stem from fatigue, engaging in general conversations that divert attention from safety-critical issues, noncompliance with FAA directives and standards, rushing, cost-cutting, and inadequate training. All Federal Aviation Administration directives must be followed to ensure compliance, and safety measures must be consistently applied to prevent and reduce human error in accidents. This includes continual training to build situational awareness and full awareness of safety issues that may arise in the course of job performance.