Human Factors Essay Example
Human Factors Essay Example

Human Factors Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 13 (3558 words)
  • Published: April 25, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Human factors and aviation safety are important issues in the aviation industry. Problems such as inadequate maintenance practices, accidents, incidents, and flawed training and standard operating procedures (SOPs) have a significant impact on daily operations. In the past, these problems were thought to be caused solely by machine faults. However, further inspection and research have shown that human error plays a much larger role in these occurrences. Since World War II, there has been an increased focus on human factors and their influence on aviation safety. It is estimated that human factors contribute to about 90% to 95% of aviation accidents and incidents.

The FAA is integrating human factors into all areas of aviation to ensure safe, comfortable, ergonomic, and effective human performance. This effort is supported by the introduction of FAA order 9550.8, which emphasizes the systematic integratio

...

n of human factors into the planning and execution of FAA functions related to system acquisitions and operations. The goal is to enhance system performance by considering human factors from the early stages of FAA projects. The FAA acknowledges that many individuals often overlook the end user – the human being – and focus solely on tangible aspects like hardware and software when evaluating a system or project.

The introduction of "Total System Performance" by the FAA addresses the lack of consideration for different aptitudes and abilities in systems designing. This measure takes into account the probabilities that the hardware/software will function correctly, the operating environment will not degrade system performance, and the user will perform correctly. It recognizes that a system may work well in controlled environments but not with human operators. Therefore, integrating human factors into ne

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

systems improves performance accuracy, reduces performance time, and enhances safety. FAA research proves that considering human performance during project development is cost-effective and safe.

During the research and development stages, it is crucial to consider various human factors such as functional design, safety and health, work space, display and controls, information requirements, display presentation, visual/aural alerts, communications, anthropometrics, and environment. However, companies often cut back on training when making financial adjustments. Some perceive training as an unnecessary expense; however, it plays a vital role in keeping employees updated and reducing errors.

In the aviation industry specifically, safety tends to be neglected if it hampers profits. CEOs prioritize cost-cutting measures during financial losses which results in training programs being eliminated first. This is a mistake for several reasons: enhancing employee morale and loyalty; ensuring employees are well-prepared for their roles; providing professional development opportunities; offering motivation and rewards.

Unfortunately, due to economic downturns, many companies disregard employee training and continuing education. This has particularly detrimental effects as employees require boosts in morale during challenging times. Convincing companies to invest in ongoing employee training can be arduous since it is perceived as an additional expense. The significance of training and its impact on a company's overall business cannot be underestimated.

Investing in continuing education and training not only significantly improves productivity and moral, but it also has various other important reasons. By doing so, a company demonstrates its commitment to employees, recognizing the mutually beneficial relationship between employer and employee. This commitment fosters loyalty among employees, resulting in increased dedication and longer tenure. These factors not only enhance productivity but also reduce expenses related to hiring and training new staff,

as well as potential legal problems arising from dissatisfied workers. Additionally, training programs guarantee that employees stay updated with new rules and policies, leading to improved compliance and risk management within the company.

Implementing ongoing education is beneficial in preventing costly mistakes and minimizing exposure to expensive litigation. It also improves service for clients or customers and enhances employee knowledge. Continuous learning aids employees in preparing for promotions or career advancement, fostering loyalty in companies that prioritize internal promotion. Additionally, promoting existing employees proves to be more cost-effective than hiring new ones due to their shorter learning curve.

In terms of acquiring new skills, group training sessions are more efficient and cost-effective compared to one-on-one instruction or self-learning methods. This approach results in economies of scale and reduces costs. Furthermore, group training helps alleviate employee frustration with new systems, a significant cause of resistance towards change.

Training programs contribute to teamwork and esprit de corps as they motivate employees, foster team building, and develop essential skills. These programs also provide a platform for employees to express their opinions and share ideas.

Many companies are not allocating enough funds for training during the economic downturn, which is disappointing. However, a careful analysis reveals that the importance of training has been recognized since the early days of manned flight. In those times, pilots would sit in a glider facing strong winds and gain experience by keeping the wings horizontally aligned. This exposure to lateral control before actual flying demonstrates the significance of training even back then.
The creators of powered airplanes followed a systematic approach, progressing through exercises on real aircraft. After passenger flights, students would practice taxiing to develop rudder control

by driving low-powered machines on the ground. They would then move on to more powerful aircraft and initially attempt short hops using elevator control. Gradually, they would achieve longer hops until they could sustain flight.
During World War I, a modified version of this method emerged known as the "penguin system." It involved utilizing reduced wingspan land-based airplanes.

The student pilot could familiarize themselves with the controls while on the ground using this machine. The French Ecole de Combat used a modified Bleriot monoplane for this purpose. This method was first considered in 1910. Other early devices aimed to accomplish the same goal, particularly for testing new aircraft prototypes. These devices utilized aircraft moving at high speed with support from balloons, overhead gantries, or railway bogies. There were also suggestions for trainers that were connected to the ground but could still respond to aerodynamic forces.

The Sanders teacher, a device used to construct an actual flying machine, was mounted on a universal joint and faced into the wind. It could respond to aileron, elevator, and rudder controls but was unsuccessful due to unreliable wind conditions. Around the same time, Eardley Billing created a similar device for use at Brooklands Aerodrome. Another early flight training device consisted of manually moved barrel half-sections representing pitch and roll. The pilot sat in the top section and aligned a reference bar with the horizon. This photo demonstrates that incidents or accidents in aviation are not solely one person's fault but rather a collective effort. Ergonomics plays an important role in reducing human error in avionics.

The discipline of human factors and ergonomics originated during World War II in the United States

but can be traced back to advancements made in the early 1900s. Prior to World War II, humans were adapted to machines through trial and error instead of designing machines that accommodated humans.

The military aviation community developed numerous human factors and ergonomic advances to meet their needs. The use of airplanes in combat during World War I necessitated the development of methods for efficiently selecting and training capable pilots. As a result, aviation psychology and aero-medical research emerged. Although there was progress during this period, Meister (1999) argues that the discipline did not fully mature due to inadequate technology and personnel, which were available in World War II.

During the period between World War I and World War II, research activity decreased, but there were still notable accomplishments. Notably, aero-medical research progressed at laboratories located in Brooks Air Force Base, Texas and Wright Field, Ohio. These laboratories conducted studies aimed at identifying the traits of successful pilots and examining how environmental stressors affected their performance during flights. Additionally, research on human body measurements contributed to the development of airplanes during this era.

In the private sector, Forbes (1939) conducted research on automobile driving behavior. The outbreak of World War II led to the development of the human factors and ergonomics discipline, driven by the need to mobilize and employ large numbers of people and design for their capabilities while mitigating limitations.

During World War II, there was a significant turning point where technological advancements surpassed people's ability to adapt and compensate for poor designs. This was particularly apparent in airplane crashes, where skilled pilots experienced difficulties with control configurations and instrument displays. Moreover, motivated radar operators overlooked enemy

contacts. To address these challenges, experimental psychologists were enlisted to apply laboratory techniques in order to solve practical problems.

Many people are unaware that the field of human factors and ergonomics emerged as a result. The period after World War II saw ongoing military-funded research, which was heavily shaped by the Cold War. Both existing military research laboratories grew larger and new ones were established by different branches of the armed forces including the Army (Human Engineering Laboratory), Air Force (Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center), and Navy (Naval Electronics Laboratory).

In 1946, the government funded the creation of laboratories in universities such as the Aviation Psychology Laboratory at the University of Illinois and the Laboratory of Aviation Psychology at Ohio State University. In private industry, human factors and ergonomics groups were also established in aviation companies, electronics sectors, and communication sectors. The Human Factors Society, the main professional organization for practitioners in human factors and ergonomics in the US, was founded in 1957. Over 90 individuals attended its initial annual meeting.

In 1992, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society changed its name to its current identity. Currently, the society has over 4500 members actively participating in various technical groups, local and student chapters, as well as attending the annual meeting.

Starting from the mid-1960s, the discipline of human factors and ergonomics experienced significant growth and advancements in established fields. It also delved into new domains such as computer hardware in the 1960s, computer software in the 1970s, and nuclear power plants and weapon systems in the 1980s.

In the 1990s, it expanded further to encompass areas like the Internet and automation. The focus of research in the 2000s

shifted towards adaptive technology among other subjects.

There has been a recent emergence of new areas of interest in the field of human factors and ergonomics, which include affect, neuroergonomics, and nanoergonomics. With advancements in technology, there is now a greater emphasis on expanding the scope of human factors and ergonomics. Originally, this field primarily focused on the interaction between individuals and machine controls. However, it has since expanded to encompass virtually any interaction between individuals and their environment.

It is intriguing to think about the possible new challenges that human factors and ergonomics will face due to rapid advancements in science and technology, especially in bio- and nanotechnology. Several authors (Brewer and Hsiang, 2002; Cacciabue, 2008; Hancock and Diaz, 2002; Rasmussen, 2000; Vicente, 2008) have speculated on the future directions of this field. Human factors and ergonomics has always been a multidisciplinary profession since its inception. In the United States, it originated from behavioral sciences like experimental psychology as well as specific engineering disciplines.

Among European nations, the profession finds its roots in the physical sciences, like human physiology. Today, individuals from various disciplines, including psychology, engineering, and physiology, utilize their distinct skills and abilities to study how people interact with. Changing the design to minimize human errors will also reduce personal failures. Boeing, a leader in aviation, has discovered numerous approaches to revamp their procedures. Over the last few decades, safer and more dependable designs have significantly contributed to reducing accident rates and enhancing efficiency.

Improvements in engines, systems, and structures have all played a role in this accomplishment. Moreover, design has consistently been acknowledged as a factor in averting and lessening human error. When Boeing begins

a new design project, past operational experience, operational goals, and scientific knowledge establish the requirements for human factors design. Methods such as mockup or simulator evaluations are utilized to evaluate how effectively different design solutions meet these requirements. Supporting this endeavor is a design philosophy centered around humans that has been tested and proven over countless flights and many years.

This approach uses technology effectively to meet validated requirements. In recent years, airplane maintenance has seen improvements in safety and operational efficiency by considering human factors. Boeing utilizes various methods, such as involving chief mechanics, using computer-based design tools, and employing fault information teams to address human factors in maintenance and flight deck design. Additionally, customer support processes play a role in this endeavor.

Modeled on the role of a chief pilot, a chief mechanic was designated for the 777 program and all subsequent airplane programs (717, 737-600/-700/-800/-900, 757-300, and 767-400 Extended Range [ER]). Similar to the chief pilot, the mechanic serves as a representative for operator or repair station counterparts. The inclusion of a chief mechanic stemmed from the acknowledgement that the maintenance community plays a vital role in the safety and punctuality of airline operations.

Utilizing the expertise of airline and production mechanics, reliability and maintainability engineers, and human factors specialists, the chief mechanic supervises the execution of all maintenance-related aspects. The introduction of computer-based maintainability design tools originated from the 777 program, in which Boeing discontinued the construction of full-scale airplane mockups. These mockups were previously utilized to assess the accessibility of airplane parts for removal and reinstallation by mechanics. Presently, Boeing employs a computer-aided three-dimensional interactive application (CATIA) and a human model to make

these assessments.

Boeing utilized human modeling analysis during the design of the 737-600/-700/-800/-900 to determine the need for a redesigned electrical/electronic bay. This redesign was necessary to allow mechanics to access all wire bundles associated with the updated flight deck concept (fig. 2). Furthermore, human factors specialists conducted ergonomic analyses to assess the ability of humans to perform maintenance procedures in various circumstances while ensuring access and visibility.

For instance, when a mechanic is in an uncomfortable position and needs to turn a valve, it is crucial that the force needed to manipulate the valve is within the mechanic's physical ability in that stance. Likewise, when carrying out maintenance work under unfavorable weather conditions during nighttime, having stable footing and employing suitable handling forces are essential to safeguard the mechanic against potential accidents like tripping or accidentally dropping equipment. Additionally, human factors considerations in maintenance were the catalyst for establishing the FIT.

Boeing chartered the FIT during the development of the 737-600/-700/-800/-900 in order to promote effective presentation of maintenance-related information, such as built-in test equipment (BITE) and maintenance documentation. Over time, the FIT charter has expanded to ensure consistency in maintenance processes and design across all systems and models. The ultimate objective is to enable mechanics to efficiently and accurately maintain all Boeing commercial airplanes. This cross-functional team comprises representatives from maintenance, engineering, human factors, and operators.

Boeing's team is responsible for maintaining and updating standards that ensure consistency in airplane maintenance displays. They use templates to create uniform fault menus for all systems, regardless of the designer or organization. The engineers involved in system design collaborate with the FIT to coordinate BITE and maintenance design efforts.

The

FIT team's responsibilities include reviewing various information used by mechanics, such as placards, manuals, and training materials. They also assess the size, location, and layout of controls and indicators, collaborating with engineers to create effective and consistent displays. Additionally, they provide input and updates to Boeing's design standards. In the early 1990s, Boeing established a maintenance human factors group with the goal of assisting operators in implementing the Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) process.

The group assists maintenance engineers in enhancing their maintenance products, such as Aircraft Maintenance Manuals, fault isolation manuals, and service bulletins. The incorporation of human factors considerations has become a crucial aspect of the Boeing design process for tools like the Portable Maintenance Aid as maintenance support increasingly relies on electronics. Furthermore, the group is creating a training program focused on human factors awareness for Boeing maintenance engineers. This program aims to help them effectively utilize human factors principles and applications in their customer support duties.

Failure to comply with procedures is a common occurrence in incidents and accidents involving flight operations and maintenance procedures. However, the industry lacks understanding of the reasons behind these errors. Boeing has developed human factors tools to address this issue and provide insights into why errors occur and suggestions for improvement. Two of these tools focus on identifying contributing factors in the work environment when airline personnel (flight crews or mechanics) make errors. By identifying and eliminating or mitigating these factors, future errors can be prevented. The tools are known as the Procedural Event Analysis Tool and the Maintenance Error Decision Aid. The Procedural Event Analysis Tool, which has been in training since mid-1999, is an analytic

tool designed to help the airline industry effectively manage the risks associated with flight crew procedural deviations. It assumes that there are underlying reasons for a flight crew member's failure to follow a procedure or make an error, and that these errors are unintentional.

The flight crew is interviewed by a trained investigator to gather detailed information about the procedural deviation and its contributing factors. This information is then recorded in a database for further analysis. PEAT is the first industry tool to concentrate on incident investigations related to procedures in a consistent and structured way, allowing the development of effective solutions. Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) was developed to gather more information about maintenance errors.

It became a project to provide maintenance organizations with a standardized process for analyzing factors that contribute to errors and developing potential corrective actions (refer to "Boeing Introduces MEDA" in Airliner magazine, April-June 1996, and "Human Factors Process for Reducing Maintenance Errors" in Aero no. 3, October 1998). MEDA aims to assist airlines in moving away from blaming maintenance personnel for errors and instead investigating and comprehending contributing causes in a systematic manner. Like PEAT, MEDA is founded on the belief that errors stem from a chain of interconnected factors.

The MEDA process was developed by Boeing maintenance human factors experts in collaboration with industry maintenance personnel. This process addresses several factors that often contribute to maintenance issues, including misleading or incorrect information, design problems, insufficient communication, and time constraints. The effectiveness of the MEDA process was tested with eight operators, under a contract with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Since its inception in 1996, the Boeing maintenance human factors group has

provided onsite implementation support to over 100 organizations worldwide.

Reduced maintenance errors have led to significant safety improvements and economic benefits for various operators. It is important not to overlook the human factor in aerospace operations' effectiveness. Despite efforts made, situations that impact the human mind will always arise, stemming from everyday stress, time pressure to complete tasks quickly, and being overworked and sleep-deprived.

This is a part of aviation that can never be changed completely but can be limited. The Impact of Employee Development: Why You Can't Afford to Cut Training Programs Terri Pepper Gavulichttp://www. officearrow. com/training-and-certification/the-impact-of-employee-development-why-you-cant-afford-to-cut-training-programs-oaiur-5859/view. html Brewer, J.D., ; Hsiang, S.M.(2002). The ‘ergonomics paradigm’: Foundations, challenges and future directions.Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 285–305.Cacciabue,P.C.(2008). Role and challenges of ergonomics in modern societal contexts.

Ergonomics, 51, 42-48. Fitts, P. M. , ; Jones, R. E. (1947a). Analysis of factors contributing to 460 "pilot error" experiences in operating aircraft controls (Report No. TSEAA-694-12). Dayton, OH: Aero Medical Laboratory, Air Materiel Command, U. S. Air Force. Fitts, P. M. , ; Jones, R. E. (1947b). Psychological aspects of instrument display. Analysis of 270 "pilot-error" experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments (Report No. TSEAA-694-12A). Dayton, OH: Aero Medical Laboratory, Air Materiel Command, U. S. Air Force. Forbes, T. W. (1939).

The Journal of General Psychology article titled "The normal automobile driver as a traffic problem" discusses the issue of traffic and its impact on the average driver. The authors of this article are Gilbreth, L. M. (1914). In their book "The psychology of management: The function of the mind in determining, teaching and installing methods of least waste," published by Sturgis ; Walton

Company in New York, they examine the role of psychology in management practices. Additionally, Gilbreth, F. B., and Gilbreth, L. M. (1917), in their publication "Applied motion study: A collection of papers on the efficient method of industrial preparedness," also published by Sturgis ; Walton Company, delve into the concept of motion study and its significance in industrial preparedness. Lastly, Hancock, P. A., and Diaz, D. D.'s (2002) work in ergonomics is highlighted as a foundation for a science of purpose.

The text includes references to various sources on the subject of human factors and ergonomics. These sources discuss the theoretical issues in ergonomics science (Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 115-123), the history of human factors and ergonomics (Meister, D., 1999), human factors testing and evaluation from a historical perspective (O’Brien, T.G. & Meister, D., 2001), the role of human factors in a dynamic information society (Rasmussen, J., 2000), and a book by Taylor, F.W. published in 1911.

The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper ; Brothers Publishers. Vicente, K. J. (2008). Human factors engineering that makes a difference: Leveraging a science of societal change. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9, 1-24. Wickens, C. D. , ; Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. CURT GRAEBER CHIEF ENGINEER HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES GROUP http://boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_08/human_textonly.html, 2011

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New