In the aviation sector, the variability in the appreciation of safety risk perception factors and responses to risk behaviours has not been sufficiently studied for engineers and technicians. Through a questionnaire survey, this study investigated differences amongst professionals and trainees across eleven risk perception factors and five indicative risk behaviour scenarios. The findings indicated significant differences between the two groups in four factors and three scenarios as well as within groups. Moreover, age, years of work and study and educational level were other factors accounting for such differences within each group of professionals and trainees. The results showing these significant differences are aligned with relevant research about pilots and indicate that the appreciation of risk perception factors by aviation engineers and the development of their risk behaviours deserves more attention. Our findings cannot be generalised due to the small sample and its distribution across the demographic variables. However, the results of this study suggest the need tailoring risk communication and training to address the different degrees to which influences of risk perception factors are comprehended, and risk behaviours emerge in aviation engineering trainees and professionals. Further research could focus on the development of a respective uniform framework and tool for the specific workforce group and could administer surveys to more extensive and more representative samples by including open-ended questions and broader social, organisational and systemic factors.

No abstract

No abstract

Modern safety thinking and models focus more on systemic factors rather than simple cause-effect attributions of unfavourable events on the behaviour of individual system actors. This study concludes previous research during which we had traced practices of new safety thinking practices (NSTPs) in aviation investigation reports by using an analysis framework that includes nine relevant approaches and three safety model types mentioned in the literature. In this paper, we present the application of the framework to 277 aviation reports which were published between 1999 and 2016 and were randomly selected from the online repositories of five aviation authorities. The results suggested that all NSTPs were traceable across the sample, thus followed by investigators, but at different extents. We also observed a very low degree of using systemic accident models. Statistical tests revealed differences amongst the five investigation authorities in half of the analysis framework items and no significant variation of frequencies over time apart from the Safety-II aspect. Although the findings of this study cannot be generalised due to the non-representative sample used, it can be assumed that the so-called new safety thinking has been already attempted since decades and that recent efforts to communicate and foster the corresponding aspects through research and educational means have not yet yielded the expected impact. The framework used in this study can be applied to any industry sector by using larger samples as a means to investigate attitudes of investigators towards safety thinking practices and respective reasons regardless of any labelling of the former as “old” and “new”. Although NSTPs are in the direction of enabling fairer and more in-depth analyses, when considering the inevitable constraints of investigations, it is more important to understand the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each approach from the viewpoint of practitioners rather than demonstrating a judgmental approach in favour or not of any investigation practice.

No abstract