Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Predicting design induced pilot error using HET (human error template) – A new formal human error identification method for flight decks

  • N. A. Stanton (a1), D. Harris (a2), P. M. Salmon (a1), J. M. Demagalski (a2), A. Marshall (a3), M. S. Young (a1), S. W. A. Dekker (a4) and T. Waldmann (a5)...

Abstract

Human factors certification criteria are being developed for large civil aircraft with the objective of reducing the incidence of design-induced error on the flight deck. Many formal error identification techniques currently exist which have been developed in non-aviation contexts but none have been validated for use to this end. This paper describes a new human error identification technique (HET – human error template) designed specifically as a diagnostic tool for the identification of design-induced error on the flight deck. HET is benchmarked against three existing techniques (SHERPA – systematic human error reduction and prediction approach; human error HAZOP – hazard and operability study; and HEIST – human error In systems tool). HET outperforms all three existing techniques in a validation study comparing predicted errors to actual errors reported during an approach and landing task in a modern, highly automated commercial aircraft. It is concluded that HET should provide a useful tool as a adjunct to the proposed human factors certification process.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents: Worldwide Operations 1959-1999, 2000 Boeing, Seattle WA, USA.
2. Civil Aviation Authority. Global Fatal Accident Review 1980-96 (CAP 681), 1998, Civil Aviation Authority, London.
3. Chapanis, A., The Chapanis Chronicles: 50 years of Human Factors Research, Education, and Design, Aegean Publishing Company, 1999, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
4. Stanton, N.A. and Baber, C., Error by design: methods for predicting device usability. Design Studies, 2002, 23, pp 363384.
5. Woods, D. and Sarter, N., Learning from automation surprises and going sour accidents. institute for ergonomics, Report ERGO-CSEL-98-02, 1998, NASA Ames CA, USA.
6. Federal Aviation Administration. Report on the Interfaces between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, USA, 1996.
7. US Department of Transportation. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport airplane and engine: notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), Federal Register 22 July 1999, 64, (140).
8. Joint Aviation Authorities. Joint airworthiness requirements (change 15): Part 25 – Large aeroplanes, Hoofdorp: Joint Aviation Authorities, 2000.
9. US Department Of Transportation. Federal Aviation Regulations, (Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards). Revised 1 January 2003. US Department Of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
10. European Aviation Safety Agency. Certification Specification 25 CS 25 – Large Aeroplanes. www.easa.eu.int/doc/Agency_Measures/Certification_Spec/decision_ED_2003_02_RM.pdf (Accessed 20 July 2005). Cologne: European Aviation Safety Agency, 2003.
11. Joint Airworthiness Authorities. Human factors aspects of flight deck design: Interim Policy Paper INT/POL/25/14, Joint Airworthiness Authorities, Hoofdorp, 2001.
12. European Aviation Safety Agency (2004). Notice of Proposed Amendment 15/2004 amending the annex to decision no. 2003/2/RM on certification specifications, including airworthiness codes and acceptable means of compliance for large aeroplanes (CS-25). www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA_15_2005.pdf (Accessed 20 July 2005). Cologne, European Aviation Safety Agency, 2005.
13. Human Factors National Advisory Committee for the DTI Innovation and Growth Team. Gaining competitive advantage through human factors: A guide to the civil aerospace industry, 2003, London, Department of Trade and Industry.
14. Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory Circular: System Design and Analysis (AC 25.1309-1A), Federal Aviation Administration, 1998, Washington DC, USA.
15. Annett, J., Hierarchical Task Analysis, in, Stanton, N.A., Hedge, A., Salas, E., Hendrick, H. and Brookhaus, K. (Eds) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, 2005, London, Taylor & Francis: London.
16. Marshall, A., Stanton, N., Young, M., Salmon, P., Harris, D., Demagalski, J., Waldmann, T. and Dekker, S., Development of the human error Template – a new methodology for assessing design induced errors on aircraft flight decks. Final Report of the ERRORPRED Project E!1970 (August 2003), London: Department of Trade and Industry, 2003.
17. Embrey, D.E., Sherpa, : A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Paper presented at the International Meeting on Advances in Nuclear Power Systems, 1986, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
18. Whalley, A., Minimising the cause of human error, in, Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K. (Eds) A Guide to Task Analysis, 1988, London, Taylor and Francis.
19. Kirwan, B., A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment, London, Taylor and Francis, 1988.
20. Kirwan, B., Human Reliability Assessment, in, Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (Eds), Evaluation of Human Work, 1990, London, Taylor and Francis, pp 706754.
21. Kirwan, B., Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 2: detailed comparison of techniques, Applied Ergonomics, 1992, 23, pp 371381.
22. Stanton, N.A. and Stevenage, S.V., Learning to predict human error: issues of reliability, validity and acceptability, Ergonomics 1998, 41, pp 17371756.
23. Harris, D., Stanton, N.A., Marshall, A., Young, M.S., Demagalski, J. and Salmon, P.M., Using SHERPA to predict design-induced error on the flight deck. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2005, 9, pp 525532.
24. Swann, C.D. and Preston, M.L., Twenty five years of HAZOPs. J loss prevention in the Process Industries. 1995, 8, pp 349353.
25. Kirwan, B., Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 1: Overview of approaches. Applied Ergonomics, 1992, 23, pp 299318.
26. Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K., A Guide to Task Analysis, 1988, Taylor and Francis, London, 1988.
27. Andrews, J.D. and Moss, T.R., Reliability and Risk Assessment, 1993, London, Professional Engineering Publishing.
28. Kirwan, B., Validation of three Human Reliability Quantification Techniques – THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part I- Technique Descriptions and Validation Issues, Applied Ergonomics 1996, 27, pp 359374.
29. Baber, C. and Stanton, N.A., Human Error Identification Techniques Applied to Public Technology: Predictions Compared with Observed use, 1996, Applied Ergonomics, 27, pp 119131.
30. Macmillan, N.A. and Creelman, C.D., Signal Detection Theory: a user’s guide, 1991, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed