Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Human factors causes in aviation accidents
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Human factors causes in aviation accidents
The focus as of the last ten years, see figure 2 with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, has shown that simplification is the way forward due to many human factors issues that have been addressed in past accident reports. Cockpits of aircraft since the 1950s have grown over crowed with immense amount of gauges in the SR-71 (figure 2) being a great example. The only time a pilot would reference many of the gauges at their disposal would be during a flight emergency otherwise they would just perform a quick scan and go about their mission. The glass cockpit was the answer in the last forty years as seen in the Boeing 777, the F117 stealth fighter, and the Shuttle Atlantis (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2000). Glass cockpits feature liquid crystal displays that can be used to display multiple gauges and avionics screens that enable the user to customize the layout to their liking. According to Lane Wallace, a NASA author, states that a glass cockpit is a series of “displays that could process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated, easily understood picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but with regard to time and speed, as well” (NASA, 2000). Large aircraft are not the only ones to utilize glass cockpits. Cessna, Piper, and Hawker Beechcraft among others began using glass cockpit designs between 2002 and 2003. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (as cited in NTSB, 2010b), “by 2006 more than 90 percent of new piston-powered, light airplanes were equipped with full glass cockpit displays”. Glass cockpits had never been studied for safety factors until the NTSB began asking questions in 2010... ... middle of paper ... ... Human error: models and management. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 768-770. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Salas, E., Fowlkes, J. E., Stout, R. J., Milanovich, D., & Prince, C. (1999). Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit?: Two evaluation studies. Human Factors, 41(2), 326. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com Salas, E. & Maurino, D. (2010). Human factors in aviation (2nd ed.). Bridgewater, NJ: Academic Press/Elsevier Skybrary. (2013, November 25) Crew Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.skybrary.aero U.S. Department of the Interior. (2009). Human factors in aviation mishaps. AMD-35 Department of Interior Aviation Lessons Learned. Doi: 09-02. Retrieved http://oas.doi.gov Vitaterna, M.H., Takashashi, J.S., & Turek, F.W. (n.d). Overview of circadian rhythms. Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov
Handling and operating an airplane comes with great risk, but these risks that are present are handled with very different attitudes and dealt with in different ways depending on the environment the pilots are in.
The Colgan Air Flight 3407 was a very interesting case to look at. On February 12, 2009, at 10:17 pm, flight 3407 crashed at a house in New York after the pilots experience a stall. Flight 3407 was scheduled to fly from Newark, New Jersey to Buffalo, New York. The NTSB reported the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed some discrepancies both pilots were experience. The first officer did not have any experience with icing condition but icing was one of the reasons the plane went into a stall. On the other hand, the captain had some experience flying in icing condition. The captain was experiencing fatigue, which indeed, made him unfit to recover from a stall. With that in mind, the Human Factor Analysis Classification System (HFACS) will give insight of some errors both pilots made.
The idea of phase advance and delay were first proposed by Aschoff and Pittendrigh (1960), but subsequent genetic studies have shown exact genes involved in phase delay and advance occurs due to over or under production of proteins as described in dorsophilia studies. Many knock out studies have shown that disruption of genes involve in circadian rhythm have created arrythmicity in animals. Low-Zeddies and Takahashi (2001), created clock mutants which were arrhythmic when exposed to dark condition. The period of clock mutants were greater when compared to wildtype mice. The mutant also showed higher phase-shifts hours and lower circadian amplitude.
United States of America. Department of Transportation. FAA. Human Error and Commercial Aviation Accidents: A Comprehensive, Fine-Grained Analysis Using HFACS. FAA, July 2006. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. .
...a good solution, and the pressure of someone watching over would get the employees to finish their work. Having glass on all four sides will also allow natural light to come in which will help keep the workers more alert and as a result enhance their productivity.
The air in between the layers of glass should be thick and dense, so that it can save energy. One of the most common airs used in-between glass is argon. When argon is used heat loss is reduced. You could also use carbon dioxide or sulfur hexa-fluoride between glass.
After studying the Aloha aircraft accident in 1933, our group is interested in the investigation in Human performances factors in maintenance and inspection. We have divided the investigation into 5 aspects:
Safety in the ethics and industry of aerospace technology is of prime importance for preventing tragic malfunctions and crashes. Opposed to automobiles for example, if an airplane breaks down while in mid-flight, it has nowhere to go but down. And sadly it will often go down “hard” and with a high probability of killing people. The Engineering Code of Ethics states first and foremost that, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.” In the aerospace industry, this as well holds very true, both in manufacturing and in air safety itself. Airline safety has recently become a much-debated topic, although arguments over air safety and travel have been going ...
Throughout the history of aviation, accidents have and will continue to occur. With the introduction of larger and more complex aircraft, the number of humans required to operate these complex machines has increased as well as, some say, the probability of human error. There are studies upon studies of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting from breakdowns in crew coordination and, more specifically, crew communication. These topics are the driving force behind crew resource management. This paper will attempt to present the concept of crew resource management (CRM) and its impact on aviation safety in modern commercial and military aviation. The concept is not a new one, but is continually evolving and can even include non-human elements such as computer-controlled limitations on aircraft maneuvers and the conflicts that result in the airline industry.
In several studies of aviation mishaps, human error has been cited as the primary cause of the majority of these mishaps. The main problems of these human errors were failures in interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the flight deck (or cockpit). With this in mind and the need to improve on air safety, Crew Resource Management was developed. We will define CRM and then continue further to define subsequent automations and questionnaires that have developed through CRM. We will discuss the importance of CRM, automations, and questionnaires and the research findings.
Prior to 1959, faulty equipment was the probable cause for many airplane accidents, but with the advent of jet engines, faulty equipment became less of a threat, while human factors gained prominence in accident investigations (Kanki, Helmreich & Anca, 2010). From 1959 to 1989, pilot error was the cause of 70% of accident resulting in the loss of hull worldwide (Kanki, Helmreich & Anca, 2010). Due to these alarming statistics, in 1979 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) implemented a workshop called “Resource Management on the Flightdeck” that led to what is now known as Crew Resource Management (CRM) or also known as Cockpit Resource Management (Rodrigues & Cusick, 2012). CRM is a concept that has been attributed to reducing human factors as a probable cause in aviation accidents. The concepts of CRM weren’t widely accepted by the aviation industry, but through its history, concepts, and eventual implementation, Crew Resource Management has become an invaluable resource for pilots as well as other unrelated industries around the world.
Introduction Plane crashes occur for a number of reasons. There seems to be a consensus with the general public that flying is dangerous, engines fail and planes crash. That is true sometimes, although the majority of plane crashes occur largely due to a combination of human error and mechanical failure. In many aviation accidents mechanical failure has been a contributing factor. It is impossible, however, to blame plane crashes on one reason, since events leading up to an accident are so varied.
This paper studies the details behind errors and accidents taking place in aviation maintenance. It states the human factors and how most of the misfortunes in the aviation industry happen because of them. The Federal Aviation Administration created a chapter on the 8083-30 General Book regarding this topic. The chapter discusses the twelve components of the “Dirty Dozen”. Any one of the dozen can result to an injury, or death, of a person on or off the flight. Considering the human factors in maintenance is absolutely necessary to improve safety and reliability and prevent injury and death. This concept has been a useful introduction to open discussion about human factors in the workplace. The dirty dozen contains; Lack of Communication,
Prior to 9/11, the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reported 10 clearly defined categories of causes; Unfamiliarity, Complex airspace, Overlying airspace, High workloads, Trusting technology too much, Confusion over landmarks, Problems getting clearances, Cutting it too Close, and finally, “I didn’t realize…”
The primary cause is of airplane accidents does at some stage contain an element of a person being unable to discharge his duties correctly and in an accurate manner. More than 53% accidents are the result of ignorance or faults by the pilot during flight. Other staff is responsible for about 8% accidents. The most obvious errors by pilot are made during the take off or landing on the runway. Additionally errors can occur during the maintenance of the airplane outside the plane, whereby a lack of thorough inspection and oversight can lead to complication during mid-flight. Fueling and loading of the plane also sometimes create problems (Shapiro, 2001).