Towards a model for the study of written procedure following in dynamic environments

Abstract Flight safety relies on a large number of automatisms and on strict written procedure following. This article presents a psycho-cognitive analysis of the procedure following task. Consequently, we have proposed a model called SPEED (Suivi de Procedures Ecrites dans les Environnements Dynamiques: Written Procedure Following in Dynamic Environments). SPEED enables the understanding of the use of written procedure in dynamic environments. It describes the reasons why pilots do not follow procedures as the manufacturers and airlines require. SPEED breaks down the activities involved in the use of procedures into nine stages: (1) detecting triggering conditions, (2) elaborating a diagnosis, (3) determining whether a procedure is needed, (4) accessing and searching for the appropriate written procedure, (5) reading and understanding the items of the procedure, (6) assessing the relevance of the procedure, (7) planning actions, (8) executing the planned actions and (9) evaluating the outcome of actions. SPEED is not as a sequential model. It is an iterative model, where some steps may be optional.

[1]  Asaf Degani,et al.  Cockpit Checklists: Concepts, Design, and Use , 1993 .

[2]  S L Young,et al.  The effect of alternative product-label design on warning compliance. , 1994, Applied ergonomics.

[3]  Gabrielle de Brito.  Analyse ergonomique du suivi de procédures écrites dans les environnements dynamiques (speed) appliquée à l'aéronautique , 2000 .

[4]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  The Phenotype of Erroneous Actions , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[5]  Guy A. Boy,et al.  The group elicitation method for participatory design and usability testing , 1996, INTR.

[6]  L. Bainbridge,et al.  PLANNING THE TRAINING OF A COMPLEX SKILL , 1993 .

[7]  David Woods,et al.  The Natural History of Introducing New Information Technology into a High-Risk Environment , 1990 .

[8]  Hélène Veyrac,et al.  Approche ergonomique des représentations de la tâche pour l'analyse d'utilisations de consignes dans des situations de travail à risques , 1998 .

[9]  C. Heath,et al.  Activité distribuée et organisation de l'interaction , 1994 .

[10]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction , 1986 .

[11]  D. Norman,et al.  New technology and human error , 1989 .

[12]  M. Bourrier.  Le nucléaire à l'épreuve de l'organisation , 1999 .

[13]  A. D. Swain,et al.  Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report , 1983 .

[14]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[15]  Rebecca Lawton,et al.  Not working to rule: Understanding procedural violations at work , 1998 .

[16]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method : CREAM , 1998 .

[17]  Guy A. Boy,et al.  Cognitive Function Analysis , 1998 .

[18]  Andrew Hale,et al.  Safety rules o.k.?: Possibilities and limitations in behavioural safety strategies , 1990 .