Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T13:22:04.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

N. A. Stanton ,
D. Harris ,
P. M. Salmon ,
J. M. Demagalski ,
A. Marshall ,
M. S. Young ,
S. W. A. Dekker  and
T. Waldmann
N. A. Stanton
Affiliation:
Department of Design, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK
D. Harris
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Bedford, UK
P. M. Salmon
Affiliation:
Department of Design, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK
J. M. Demagalski
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Bedford, UK
A. Marshall
Affiliation:
Marshall Ergonomics Ltd, Hampshire, UK
M. S. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Design, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK
S. W. A. Dekker
Affiliation:
School of Aviation, Lund University, Ljungbyhed, Sweden
T. Waldmann
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1104 , February 2006 , pp. 107 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents: Worldwide Operations 1959-1999, 2000 Boeing, Seattle WA, USA.Google Scholar
2. Civil Aviation Authority. Global Fatal Accident Review 1980-96 (CAP 681), 1998, Civil Aviation Authority, London.Google Scholar
3. Chapanis, A., The Chapanis Chronicles: 50 years of Human Factors Research, Education, and Design, Aegean Publishing Company, 1999, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.Google Scholar
4. Stanton, N.A. and Baber, C., Error by design: methods for predicting device usability. Design Studies, 2002, 23, pp 363–384.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
6. Federal Aviation Administration. Report on the Interfaces between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
8. Joint Aviation Authorities. Joint airworthiness requirements (change 15): Part 25 – Large aeroplanes, Hoofdorp: Joint Aviation Authorities, 2000.Google Scholar
9. US Department Of Transportation. Federal Aviation Regulations, (Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards). Revised 1 January 2003. US Department Of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
11. Joint Airworthiness Authorities. Human factors aspects of flight deck design: Interim Policy Paper INT/POL/25/14, Joint Airworthiness Authorities, Hoofdorp, 2001.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
14. Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory Circular: System Design and Analysis (AC 25.1309-1A), Federal Aviation Administration, 1998, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
19. Kirwan, B., A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment, London, Taylor and Francis, 1988.Google Scholar
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 706–754.Google Scholar
21. Kirwan, B., Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 2: detailed comparison of techniques, Applied Ergonomics, 1992, 23, pp 371–381.Google Scholar
22. Stanton, N.A. and Stevenage, S.V., Learning to predict human error: issues of reliability, validity and acceptability, Ergonomics 1998, 41, pp 1737–1756.Google Scholar
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 525–532.Google Scholar
24. Swann, C.D. and Preston, M.L., Twenty five years of HAZOPs. J loss prevention in the Process Industries. 1995, 8, pp 349–353.Google Scholar
25. Kirwan, B., Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 1: Overview of approaches. Applied Ergonomics, 1992, 23, pp 299–318.Google Scholar
26. Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K., A Guide to Task Analysis, 1988, Taylor and Francis, London, 1988.Google Scholar
27. Andrews, J.D. and Moss, T.R., Reliability and Risk Assessment, 1993, London, Professional Engineering Publishing.Google Scholar
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 359–374.Google Scholar
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 119–131.Google Scholar
30. Macmillan, N.A. and Creelman, C.D., Signal Detection Theory: a user’s guide, 1991, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar