Human Factors in Aviation - Essay Example

 Abstract Communication plays a vital part in the aviation industry. Effective and concise communication should always be present to avoid incidents and accidents to happen during flights. It is along this line that automation was introduced in an attempt to address the problem of communication error in most accidents that have happened in the history of aviation. A thorough review of studies conducted already along this field lea the researcher to look into the problem, “How automation affects communication in aviation?” Statement of the Problem Although human factors study has been in existence since the late 19th century, new and related areas of research in the field of general aviation have been of interest lately in the study of human factors. These would include areas such as understanding human error, vision and illusions, effects of fatigue, body rhythms and communication theory. Considering that almost three-fourths of the reports received by the National Aviation Space Authority (NASA)’s ASRS reporting system involve some form of communication error, aviation psychology researchers have focused their attention on this area. According to communication theorists, there are four elements required for communication to take place: the sender, the message, the medium and the receiver (McQuail, 2002). The sender involves who or what is sending the message; it could be ATC communicating a clearance, a system in the cabin communicating information about the aircraft, or the pilot communicating a control input to the aircraft. The message involves what is actually being communicated, i.e., the clearance by ATC, a complaint by one of the passengers, or an indication from one of the aircraft’s gauges. The medium is how the message is sent: auditory or visual, over a radio, data uplink or in person. The receiver is obviously, who receives the message and is not always who the message is intended for: aircraft with similar N-numbers. Considering the complexity involved in every bit of communication, the reason for the number of problems that arise should be very clear. As pilots, be it ATPs, instructors, or weekend flyers, it is imperative that clear concise communication be consistently exercised. Otherwise, we become a statistic or turn others into one. Clear and concise communication leads to an effective communication process where the receiver decodes what the sender has sent. In cases when correct decoding of the message did not take place, a breakdown in the communication process occurs presenting danger especially to the situation where people’s lives are at stake. The aviation industry recognizes this problem area that is the reason for attempts to further develop and improve automation in the process. Technologically-driven innovations to automate operations in the aviation practice are continuously being studied in the hope of minimizing communication-related errors. It is along this light, that this paper attempts to address the question “How automation affects communication in aviation?” Literature Review The fields of aviation, communication in aviation, automation and human factors have been widely-written and studied as published in journals and technical papers and as presented in various specialized gatherings of scientists researching on these fields. Below are some of these researches. Parasuraman and Wickens (2008) discussed the empirical studies of human-automation interaction and their implications for automation design in their research paper entitled “Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation.” Since automation is prevalent in safety-critical systems such as in aviation and medicine and increasingly in everyday life particularly in office operations, several studies of human performance in automated systems have been conducted over the past 30 years. The authors examined developments in three areas, namely: levels and stages of automation, reliance on and compliance with automation, and adaptive automation. According to Parasuraman and Wickens (2008), automation comes in different levels, with each level representing increased machine autonomy. Their proposed level of automation (LOA) distinguishes four information-processing stages with each stage having its own LOA scale. A medium LOA at Stage 1, i.e., information acquisition, involves organizing incoming information according to some criteria, for instance, highlighting an aircraft’s data block on a controller’s radar display to indicate a potential problem, A higher LOA at stage 2, i.e.information analysis, involves integration in which several input variables are combined into a single value. A good example of this is the converging runway display aid, which eliminates the need for controllers to mentally project the approach path of one aircraft onto that of another landing on a converging runway. A high LOA decision automation, on the other hand, might be risky if the outcome involves lethality or human safety. Thus studies are conducted to ensure full reliability. Sarter and Schroeder (2001), in a full-mission simulator study, provided pilots flying in potentially icy conditions with icing-monitoring automation that was not perfectly reliable. The automation provided either status information about the location of the icing or a decision recommendation concerning how to maneuver in response to the icing’s influence on aircraft stability. When reliable, both types of automation improved performance. However, the cost of imperfect advice by the automation was greater when participants were given a recommendation to implement (decision automation) than when they were given only status information, which they had to use to make their own decision (information automation) In a study by Sexton and Helmreich (1999) the importance of communication in the flightdeck is discussed and an application of a new computer-based linguistic method of text analysis is introduced. Preliminary results from a NASA B727 simulator study indicate that specific language variables are moderately to highly correlated with individual performance, individual error rates and individual communication ratings. Also, language use was found to vary as a function of crew position and level of workload during the flight. Use of the first person plural (we, our, us) increase over the life of a flightcrew, and CA’s speak more in the first person plural than FOs or FEs. Language use in initial flights was associated with performance and error in subsequent flights. These are preliminary data, in that this method of linguistic analysis is currently being developed and integrated with a content-coding method of communication analysis and models of threat and error. Krivonos’ study on “Communication in Aviation Safety: Lessons Learned and Lessons Required” (2007) explores the role of communication in aviation safety especially as communication functions to provide information, establish interpersonal relationships, coordinate activity, monitor conditions, and as a management tool. Lessons learned from these areas were used to propose future communication-related research needed in aviation safety and possible topics and methods of communication training for improved aviation safety. The paper emphasized effective communication as an essential in aviation safety, whether within the cockpit, the cabin, maintenance or between flight deck and other parts of the aviation system. Effective crew coordination is fundamentally dependent upon effective communication. Thus, teaching effective communication is an essential requirement for aviation safety training. However, it is “probably impossible to eliminate the risk of ineffective communication leading to incidents and accidents” but it is possible to minimize risks by creating an awareness of the importance of effective communication.” (Krivonos, 2007) Howard (2008) examined problematic communication in pilot-air traffic controller interaction. A total of 34 ATCs, 270 pilots, and 1,799 turns of talk were studied in a research entitled “”Tower, Am I cleared to Land?”” Problematic Communication in Aviation discourse.” Results presented four interesting and significant findings: (a) communication problematics manifested in pilot turns more than ATC turns; (b) higher amounts of information led to increased problematic communication in the subsequent turn; and (c) Linguistic violations of ATC protocol increased problematic communication in the subsequent turn. Since communication error has frequently been identified as a problem in aviation incidents, a research conducted by Corradini and Cacciari (2002) investigated the influence of workshift and workload on air traffic controller (ATCo) communications. The researchers designed a taxonomy of possible communicative errors and incorrectness and proposed a specific grid to analyze the communicative exchanges taking place during the workshifts and under different workloads of tower and approach controllers and pilots in an Italian airport. Results of this study captured a wide variety of communicative problems: controllers widely employed a linguistic code strongly deviating from standard phraseology, with a widespread presence of Italian language, of non-standard expressions, ellipses and redundancies. “Shiftwork and workload significantly affected the ATCos’ communicative performance: linguistic deviations significantly increased during the nightshift with a low workload, while the most correct exchanges occurred in the morning shift.” (Corradini & Cacciari, 2002) Suggested Solutions Some possible solutions to address the issue raised earlier in this paper are the following: 1. Integrate awareness on effective communication to all aspects of aviation safety environment 2. Identify possible high LOA situations and observe necessary studies to ensure reliability 3. Introduce intercultural communication trainings to all members of the workforce who are part of the aviation industry especially those with the direct access to operations. 4. Conduct further studies and make it a continuing practice to fully develop the this aspect of the field of human factors in aviation References Bailey III, William R. , et.al. Analysis of Aircrews’ Weather Decision Confidence as a Function of Distance, Display Agreement, Communication, Leadership and Experience. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2007. Corradini, P. and C. Cacciari. “The Effect of Workload and Workshift on Air Traffic Control: A Taxonomy of Communicative Problems.” Cognition, Technology and Work Vol. 4 No. 4, Nov. 2002. Drury, Colin G. and Jiao Ma. Language Error Analysis: Report on Literature of Aviation Language Errors and Analysis of Error Databases. University of Buffalo, State University of New York, Department of Industrial Engineering. Durso, Francis T. and Arathi Sethumadhavan. Situation Awareness: Understanding Dynamic Environments. Human Factors, Vol. 50, No.3, June 2008, pp. 442-448 Howard, John W. III. “Tower, am I cleared to land?: Problematic Communication in Aviation Discourse.” Human Communication Research Vol. 34, July 2008. Krivonos, Paul D. Communication in Aviation Safety: Lessons Learned and Lessons Required. California State University. Presented in 2007 Regional Seminar of the Australia and New Zealand Societies of Air Safety Investigators. McQuail, Denis. Communication Theories. Parasuraman, Raja and Christopher D. Wickens. Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation. Human Factors, Vol. 50, No.3, June 2008, pp. 511-520 Sarter, N. and Schroeder, B. Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, Vol. 43, 573-583 Sexton, J. Bryan and Robert L. Helmreich. Analyzing Cockpit Communication: The Links Between Language, Performance, Error and Workload. University of Texas Team Research Project, Department of Psychology. Read More