Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:48:28.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airspace safety in New Zealand: A causal analysis of controller caused airspace incidents between 1994-2002

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

A. Majumdar ,
W. Y. Ochieng  and
P. Nalder
A. Majumdar
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College, London
W. Y. Ochieng
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College, London
P. Nalder
Affiliation:
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The New Zealand Government takes airspace safety very seriously. The level of safety in New Zealand airspace is measured by the number of recorded airspace incidents. An airspace incident can be thought of as a failure in the chain of operations in the air traffic system when it is provided with an air traffic service (ATS). Some of these incidents result in a loss of separation between aircraft, varying from slight to a very serious loss with a significant risk of collision, known as a near collision. New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) identifies the causal factors for all airspace incidents using the Reason model of human error, divided into three areas; active failures committed by individuals involved in the incident, local factors relating to the task and the ATS environment and organisational factors originating in the managerial and organisation spheres of the ATS provider. Based upon the CAA’s database, this paper analyses trends in controller caused incidents in the NZ airspace during the period 1994 to 2002 in six controller caused categories. The results indicate that for controller caused incidents, execution errors dominate the active failures category, while in the case of local factors, poor concentration/lack of attention, inadequate checking and controller workload are the dominant factors. For the organisation category, poor planning and inadequate control and monitoring dominate. These results should form the basis of a robust and transparent framework for intervention mechanisms by the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority for enhanced airspace safety.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1083 , May 2004 , pp. 225 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand civil aviation rules, Part 12, accidents, incidents and statistics, 1999, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand and Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (2000a) Advisory Circular, AC12-2, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.Google Scholar
2. Mogford, R.H., Murphy, E.D., Roske-Hofstrand, R.J., Yastrop, G. and Guttman, J.A. Research techniques for documenting cognitive processes in air traffic control: sector complexity and decision making, 1994, US Department of Transportation FAA Report Number DOT/FAA/CT-TN94/3, Federal Aviation Administration, Technical Centre, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
3. Rodgers, M.D., Mogford, R.H. and Mogford, L.S. The relationship of sector characteristics to operational errors, 1998, FAA Report DOT/FAA/AM-98/14.Google Scholar
4. Rodgers, M.D., and Nye, L.G. Factors associated with the severity of operational errors at air route traffic control centers, 1993, Rodgers, M.D. (Ed), An examination of the operational error database for air route traffic control centers, Report No DOT/FAA/AM-93/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
5. O’hare, D., Wiggens, M., Batt, R. and Morrison, D. Cognitive failure analysis for aircraft accident investigation, Ergonomics, 1994, 37, pp 1855–1869.Google Scholar
6. Rasmussen, J. Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models, 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-13, 257–266.Google Scholar
7. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand advisory circular, AC12-2, 2000, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.Google Scholar
8. Poole, R.W. and Butler, V. How to commercialise air traffic control, 2001, Policy Study No 278, The Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
9. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand aviation safety summary report, 2003, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.Google Scholar
10. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand) Aviation safety summary report, 2003, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand — Revision 11.Google Scholar
11. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand annual report, 2002, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.Google Scholar
12. Reason, J.T. Human Error, 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
13. Reason, J.T. A systems approach to organisational error, Ergonomics, 1995, 38, pp 1708–1721.Google Scholar
14. Mathews, G., Davies, D.R., Westerman, S.J. and Stammers, R.B. Human Performance: Cognition, Stress and Individual Differences, 2000, The Psychology Press, Hove, East Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
15. Edkins, G.D. and Pollock, C.M. Pro-active safety management: application and evaluation within a rail context, Safety Science, 1996, 24, (2), pp 83–93.Google Scholar
16. Norman, D.A. The Psychology of Everyday Things, 1988, Basic Books; New York.Google Scholar
17. Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y. A trend analysis of air traffic occurrences in the UK airspace, J Navigation, 2003, 56, (2), pp 211–229.Google Scholar
18. Kinney, G.C., Spahn, J. and Amato, R.A. The human element in air traffic control: observations and analyses of the performance of controllers and supervisors in providing ATC separation services, 1977, Report No MTR-7655, McLean, Virginia: Metreek Division of the Mitre Corporation.Google Scholar
19. Schroeder, D.J. The loss of predicted separation between aircraft: how does it occur? 1982, proceedings (p 114) Behavioral Objectives in Aviation Automation Systems Symposium, Society of Automotive Engineers, Washington, DC, pp 257–69.Google Scholar
20. Empson, J. Error auditing in air traffic control, information systems: failure analysis, 1987, proceedings of the NATO Advanced Workshop, pp 191–198, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
21. Langan, -Fox, C.P. and Empson, A.C. ‘Actions not as planned’ in military air traffic control, Ergonomics, 1985, 28, (11), pp 1509–21.Google Scholar
22. Redding, R.E., Cannon, J.R. and Seamster, T.L. Expertise in air traffic control (ATC): what is it, and how can we train for it?, proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 1992, pp 1326–1330, Santa Monica, California, USA.Google Scholar
23. Stager, P. and Hameluck, D. Ergonomics in air traffic control, Ergonomics, 1990, 33, pp 493–499.Google Scholar
24. Schroeder, D.J. and Nye, L.G. An examination of the workload conditions associated with operational errors/deviations at air route traffic control centers, 1993, An Examination of the Operational Error Database for Air Route Traffic Control Centers, Rodgers, M.D. (Ed), Report No DOT/FAA/AM-93/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
25. Grossberg, M. Relation of sector complexity to operational errors, 1989, quarterly report of the FAA Office of Air Traffic Evaluation and Analysis, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
26. Endsley, M.R. and Rodgers, M.D. Distribution of attention, situation awareness, and workload in a passive air traffic control task: implications for operational errors and automation, July 1997, Report No DOT/FAA/AM-97/13, Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
27. Isaac, A.R. and Ruitenberg, B. Air Traffic Control: Human Performance Factors, 1999, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, England.Google Scholar
28. Gosling, G. Analysis of factors affecting the occurrence and severity of air traffic control operational errors, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 2002, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar