Applying Situation Awareness to Human-Machine Interface Design of Aviation

Jin, Huibin; Wang, Lei

doi:10.1109/kam.2009.75

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Human-error is a factor in nearly 70% -80% of all civil aviation accidents and has been so since improvements to aircraft safety plateaued in the 1970's [10][11][12]. Much work has been done to determine factors which influence the occurrence of human errors leading to aviation accidents.…”

Section: Human-error In Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST) methodology is one such network-based method which focuses on three major event areas: task, social and information, and the interaction of the three [29]. This model highlights the importance of pilot situational awareness, a factor known to contribute to accidents and an area for improvement in piloting system design [11,29,30]. Error detection strategies [31] and error management training are also proposed means to reduce pilot error by improving situational awareness and attitudinal and team factors [32].…”

Section: Network Modelling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…System failure can occur due to the interactions, even if all the components on their own are functional. As there is degree of autonomy in most aircraft, the pilot's ability to interact effectively with the system without losing too much control or situational awareness is extremely important so that in an emergency event the pilot is still able to effectively take manual control of the aircraft [11,15,49] or transition from one level of control (autopilot) to another (manual) [37], with incomplete information [46], or mode confusion [50] (dissonance between the mental model of the operator and the actual state of the technical system). The sociotechnical interactions on the flight desk are still not fully understood, particularly with respect to how they are affected by cultural influences [15], the representations of the hardware state to the pilot [46], and how the pilot builds mental awareness of the environment [51].…”

Section: Cognitive Processes and Sociotechnical Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Aviation Human Error Modelled as a Production Process

Pons¹,

Dey

2015

TOERGJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As technology systems have become more complex, so it is increasingly difficult for human operators to comprehend how the system is behaving. There is a need to better understand the causes of human-error in the context of the situational variables. The specific case under examination is the process of landing an aircraft. This paper applies a production engineering perspective. By production-process, we refer to the set of actions that are necessary to move a system from one state to a desired new state. Such processes involve mechanisms for taking inputs and converting them to the desired outputs, under certain controls and constraints. Human error is thus treated as a constraint on the processes. A novel process methodology is developed to represent how technical systems, situational variables, external factors, and human error evolve over time in a process. The applicability is demonstrated with a dataset of case studies. In parallel, a new categorization of human errors is derived for this situation. The method permits cases to be examined individually, and also collectively for patterns. The results show that the initial landing approach is often the point of error initiation. For the specific case of landing accidents the methodology identifies that the failure causality was the lack of attention to establish procedure at the very start of descent, followed by persistent disregard of disconfirmatory evidence at the initial landing approach, especially under conditions of poor visibility. The paper makes a methodological contribution as well as suggesting new insights for how human error occurs at landing.

show abstract

Section: Human-error In Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%