Human Factors in Aviation: Safety, Training, and Automation

Historical Background of Aviation and Human Factors

The airline industry has a history that dates back to 1903, when the Wright brothers made their first successful flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Initially, the public did not view airplane travel favorably. However, that event marked the beginning of the airline industry, as enthusiasm steadily grew — spurred by figures such as Charles Lindbergh, who successfully completed a solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927 and generated massive public interest in flying.

Concern for human factors in aviation arose almost as soon as that public interest was kindled. The initial concern centered on the safety of those daring enough to fly, as accidents were reported due to flaws in the design or operation of aircraft. A pilot's task was to manage the considerable complexity of early airplane design. With World War II, government spending on research and development increased substantially, paving the way for innovation and the introduction of modernized aircraft. The demands placed on certain human traits in pilots multiplied, as did young people's interest in becoming aviators.

The importance of human factors grew considerably when it became clear that most aviation accidents are attributable to human error rather than mechanical failure. Consideration of the human element — rather than purely mechanical factors — therefore gained tremendous prominence. The scope of human factors is vast, encompassing psychology, physiology, environment, human capabilities and limitations, user-friendly machine design, and ergonomics. By developing an understanding of the different areas of human involvement, the chance of error can be reduced and safety can be assured. It is now widely accepted that fewer human errors translate directly into better safety outcomes.

Technology and Human Interaction in the Cockpit

Technology is a constantly evolving feature of the aviation industry. Innovations and new technologies emerge at regular intervals, and crew training is considered equally important for understanding and utilizing those technologies. A persistent problem, however, is that technology often evolves faster than human training can keep pace with the rapid changes. At times, the understanding of and interaction with technology is insufficient, resulting in serious problems. Natural human limitations cannot be ignored — they exist and always will — but the goal must be to enhance human–technology interaction in order to produce better results and improve safety in aviation.

To this end, human factors specialists work closely with engineers, safety experts, test and training pilots, mechanics, and cabin crews to achieve a high level of success in design and training for both flight crews and maintenance technicians.

With the introduction of aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and 727, the era of the automated cockpit began, along with the challenges of human factors associated with cockpit automation. Many criticisms were directed at drawbacks in automation design and non-user-friendly interfaces. As a result, manufacturers began placing greater importance on the human elements involved in design, recognizing that greater consideration of pilot needs in automation design benefits the entire industry. Aircraft crashes and accidents have largely brought automation-related issues to the fore. Political groups, social organizations, and NGOs began questioning the need for thorough human-factor study in automation, and this pressure fostered closer interaction between the industry and human factors academics to improve the human–machine interface.

All-glass cockpits now incorporate two prominent features: aircraft automation and computerization. Modern glass cockpits have delivered real benefits — including improvements in safety, efficiency, and speed — but problems have also emerged. An initial difficulty was that pilots could not make smooth transitions to glass cockpits, partly due to resistance to habit change. A deeper problem arose from the sheer volume and speed of information available through computerized databases. The array of data available to pilots has in certain cases caused confusion and contributed to crashes — for example, the Thai Airlines A310 accident near Kathmandu, Nepal, in 1992. Pilots' confusion with the system can cause them to lose track of time and position. As one source notes, "Most pilots lack a fundamental grasp of the internal logic of automation and evaluate the gap between their expectations (governed by what they would do if they were in command) and what the computer does" (Daniel, 1999).

Any product should be designed with its end users in mind and in consultation with them. Pilots' input into automation design has been largely ignored. Automation is intended to help and assist flight crew members rather than to replace or confuse them. The need, therefore, is to employ easy-to-use systems rather than complicated ones. Trends over the years have shown that glass-cockpit incidents and accidents can be reduced considerably if pilot exposure to error is minimized through thoughtful design.

Crew Resource Management (CRM)

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is considered an essential prevention tool in aviation and was introduced during the 1970s. When mentioned in the context of aviation, CRM immediately brings to mind the safety and effectiveness of the aviation system. "Poor pilot performance and faulty crew resource management (CRM) have been cited as contributing factors in numerous accidents and incidents reported by major airlines during the period covering 1983 to 1985 (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997)" (Bowers, 2001). Lack of coordination among crew members has also been identified as a major cause of accidents, with the source of error frequently being a lack of orientation toward teamwork.

CRM equips operational personnel with proper training to achieve the ultimate goal of safe transportation of passengers and cargo. It seeks solutions not only to individual and cognitive problems associated with aviation but also to issues in overall management and organization. Teamwork is one area where CRM places particular emphasis. Beyond the regular technical aspects of training, CRM addresses general managerial and interpersonal skills such as leadership, effective team formation and maintenance, problem solving, and decision-making.

CRM is intended to be a proactive rather than reactive approach, but in practice it has not always been implemented as designed. Reviewing historical examples, it becomes clear that CRM has helped avert disasters on a number of occasions, yet to claim that the overall approach has been consistently proactive would be an overstatement. CRM has nonetheless evolved through different phases and has become an integral part of operational training. Originally known as Cockpit Resource Management, it was renamed Crew Resource Management with the introduction of glass cockpits. Over time, mental models, interpersonal skills, team building, stress and fatigue management, automation management, and vigilance were added to the basic flight operation elements of CRM.

Many new activities are becoming part of CRM, and practitioners are continually seeking ways to improve the system. "By exploiting advances in training technology and methods — and, perhaps more importantly, adopting a systematic methodology for developing training — teamwork in the cockpit will improve. It is up to scientists and practitioners to see that the potential benefits of CRM training are realized in the aviation community" (Bowers, 1999). Over the years, CRM experts have drawn positive lessons, but room for improvement remains.

Conclusion

Safety of flight operations depends on learning lessons from past experiences and applying those lessons to the future betterment of the industry as a whole. The importance of human factors in aviation cannot be ignored any longer. Past studies of accidents and crashes provide ample evidence that action is needed, for the sake of the entire industry and for the safety of all who interact with aviation on a regular basis — passengers, crew, ground staff, and others alike.

What is required, however, is a proactive rather than reactive approach. Instead of initiating studies or improvements only after an accident or crash has occurred, the industry must adopt a forward-looking orientation when seeking solutions to problems. Flight and maintenance crews, personnel involved in design and manufacturing, simulator developers, human factors specialists, and all major stakeholders must work together to build a better system — one that genuinely values human factors and incorporates every relevant aspect of human performance, limitation, and well-being.

References

Daniel J. Garland, V. David Hopkins, & John A. Wise. (1999). Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clint A. Bowers, C. Shawn Burke, Eduardo Salas, & Katherine A. Wilson. (2001). Team training in the skies: Does Crew Resource Management (CRM) training work? Vol. 43.

Clint A. Bowers, Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Randall L. Oser, Carolyn Prince, Eduardo Salas, & Renee J. Stout. (1999). A methodology for enhancing Crew Resource Management training. Vol. 41.

Graeber, C. (n.d.). Human factors. Boeing Aero Magazine.

A better mousetrap from aviation safety. (2000). Skyaid.