Developing a Taxonomy for Success in Commercial Pilot Behaviors
Main Article Content
Abstract
Human error has been well studied in aviation. However, less is known about the ways in which human performance maintains and contributes to aviation safety. The lack of data on positive human performance prevents consideration of the full range of human behaviors when making safety and risk management decisions. The concept of resilient performance provides a framework to understand and classify positive human behaviors. Through interviews with commercial airline pilots, this study examined routine airline operations to evaluate the concept of resilient performance and to develop a taxonomy for success. The four enablers of resilient performance, anticipation, learning, responding, and monitoring, were found to be exhaustive but not mutually exclusive. The tenets of resilience theory apply in airline pilot behavior, but operationalizing a taxonomy will require more work.
Article Details
References
Boy, G. A., & Schmitt, K. A. (2013). Design for safety: A cognitive engineering approach to the control and management of nuclear power plants. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 52, 125-136.
de Vos, M. (2018). Healthcare improvement based on learning from adverse outcomes. Ph. D. Dissertation, The Netherlands: Leiden University.
Federal Aviation Administration (2002). Aviation safety action program. Advisory circular 120-66B. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-66B.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (2014). LOSA characteristics. https://www.faa.gov/about/ initiatives/maintenance_hf/losa/media/LOSA_Brochure_August_2014_v6.pdf
Helmreich, R. L. (1997). Managing human error in aviation. Scientific American, 276(5), 62-67.
Helmreich, R. L., & Musson, D. M. (2000). Threat and error management model: Components and examples. British Medical Journal, 9, 1-23.
Holbrook, J., Stewart, M., Smith, B., Prinzel, L., Matthews, B., Avrekh, I., Cardoza, C., Ammann, O., Adduru, V., & Null, C. (2019). Human performance contributions to safety in commercial aviation. NASA Langley Research Center. NASA/TM2019-220417
Hollnagel, E. (2011). RAG – The resilience analysis grid. In: E. Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D. D. Woods & J. Wreathall (Eds), Resilience Engineering in Practice. A Guidebook. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-I and safety-II: The past and future of safety management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.
Kontogiannis, T., & Malakis, S. (2009). A proactive approach to human error detection and identification in aviation and air traffic control. Safety Science, 47(5), 693-706.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2019). Aviation safety reporting system program briefing. https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/ASRS_ProgramBriefing.pdf
Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2001). Applying reason: The human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1(1), 59-86.
Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (1999). Human error and crew resource management failures in Naval aviation mishaps: A review of US Naval Safety Center data, 1990-96. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 70(12), 1147-1151.
Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2017). A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factors analysis and classification system. London: Routledge.
Woods, D. D. (2017). Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.