Human error prevention: using the human error template to analyze errors in a large transport aircraft for human factors considerations

Flight crews make positive contributions to the safety of aviation operations. Pilots have to assess continuously changing situations, evaluate potential risks and make quick decisions. However, even well trained and experienced pilots make errors. Accident investigations have identified that pilots’ performance is influenced significantly by the design of the flight deck interface. This research applies Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) and utilizes the – Human Error Template (HET) taxonomy - to collect error data from pilots during flight operations when performing a go-around in a large commercial transport aircraft. HET was originally developed in response to a requirement for formal methods to assess compliance with the new human factors certification rule for large civil aircraft introduced to reduce the incidence of design induced error on the flight deck (EASA Certification Specification 25.1302). The HET taxonomy was applied to each bottom level task step in an HTA of the flight task in question. A total of 67 pilots participated in this research including 12 instructor pilots, 18 ground training instructor, and 37 pilots. Initial results found that participants identified 17 operational steps with between two and eight different operational errors being identified in each step by answering to the questions based either on his/her own experience or their knowledge of the same mistakes made previously by others. Sixty-five different errors were identified. The data gathered from this research will help to improve safety when performing a go-around by identifying potential errors on a step-by-step basis and allowing early remedial actions in procedures and crew coordination to be made

[1]  A. Chapanis The Chapanis Chronicles: 50 Years of Human Factors Research, Education, and Design , 1999 .

[2]  K. Abbott,et al.  The interfaces between flightcrews and modern flight deck systems , 1996 .

[3]  Don Harris,et al.  Routes to failure: analysis of 41 civil aviation accidents from the Republic of China using the human factors analysis and classification system. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Don Harris,et al.  Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents. , 2006, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[5]  Wen-Chin Li,et al.  The Evaluation of the Effect of a short Aeronautical Decision-Making Training Program for Military Pilots , 2008 .

[6]  Sidney Dekker,et al.  The re-invention of human error , 2001 .

[7]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment , 1994 .

[8]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Predicting design induced pilot error using HET (human error template) – A new formal human error identification method for flight decks , 2006, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[9]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Learning from Automation Surprises and "Going Sour" Accidents: Progress on Human-Centered Automation , 1998 .

[10]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods , 2009 .

[11]  S. P. Whalley,et al.  Minimising the Cause of Human Error , 1988 .

[12]  James Reason,et al.  Human Error , 1990 .

[13]  D. E. Embrey,et al.  SHERPA: A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach , 2013 .

[14]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Using SHERPA to predict design-induced error on the flight deck , 2005 .