Future of Human Factors in Aviation - Thesis Example

ASCI 490 Aeronautical Science Capstone Individual Project Embry-Riddle Aeronautical ASCI 490 Aeronautical Science Capstone Course Project Submitted to the Worldwide Campus in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Aeronautics Abstract The purpose of this research is to identify the major technological developments taking place in order to minimize human factors in safety risks in the aviation industry. The scope of the research encompasses all the developments in flight deck design, flight support systems and error reporting systems that will help to reduce stress and fatigue so that professionals can exercise their best judgment at all times. The research is based on a qualitative study of secondary sources of information including online and print sources. Books, industry reports and research articles are consulted for data to be used for the research. Project This is an individual capstone project. Future of Human Factors in Aviation Human factors are the major contributors in accidents associated with aviation industry (Helmreich, 2000). Flight Standards (AFS) Human Factors Specialists’ primary activities include: “Develop and update FAA regulations, policy, and guidance about human factors issues for aircraft operations and procedures, aircraft maintenance, pilot training, and other functions; Support projects that involve human factors assessments of aircraft operations, procedures, and maintenance; Develop tools to assist the FAA Flight Standards Service; Sponsor and supervise human factors research to support Flight Standards” (FAA, n. d.). FAA and NASA have spent a huge amount of R&D budget in understanding these factors. In an attempt to determine the path for future development in the field of human factors and aviation industry, a thorough investigation was carried out with the help of secondary sources that included books, research articles, and official report. With various technological developments the influence of human factor in aviation has been mitigated to some extent, however, there is still a room for improvement. The need at the moment is to develop error tolerant systems, that not only monitors human factors, but also use automation to an extent where equipment become task centered as well as human centered. The detail of proposed methodology used in the completion of project has been included in appendix A. Introduction Aviation industry is one of the most prosperous industries. The expected annual growth of the industry is around five percent. The number of people utilizing these services continues to increase as well. With such a large customer base, it is tough to maintain standards in performance. Moreover, the slightest of errors may end up in causing loss of millions and affecting several hundred lives at the same time. Safety and efficiency of operations are the two most vital components. These components rely directly on organizations and their crew members. Despite, the advances in technology, it is imperative to train people in the organization. Like any other field, the role of society and culture of the organization plays an important role in the performance of the company. Failure in aviation always invites attention; the reason being its massive scale. To avoid incidences that put questions on safety offered by aviation industry, several standardized methods and tools of investigations have been designed. Research carried out at National Aeronautics and Space Administration regarding aviation accidents has shown that majority are a result of human error. Human errors may be classified as physiological and psychological (Helmreich, 2000). They include fatigue, workload, fear, cognitive overload and poor interpersonal communication, imperfect information processing, and flawed decision making. It has been observed through analysis of data related to mishaps associated with aviation are caused by failure of compliance, communication, procedures, proficiency, and decision making (Helmreich, 2000). In the recent decades, there has a lot of emphasis on studying human factors, and ways to deal with it. Supporting this approach is the sad history of aviation failures that were mainly caused by negligence on the part of crew members. Human factors are frequently used interchangeably with crew resource management and maintenance resource management, but former is a very broad field compared to the latter fields. Human factors encompasses collection of data regarding human abilities, limitations, and other features like use of equipment, performance efficiency and capability to contribute towards generating safe environment and propagating comfort (Rasmussen, 1982).. In aviation, the study of human factors is mainly focused towards designing safer processes that ensure safety, especially while using technology. Technologies are developed in laboratories, but conveying it comprehensively among the professionals at job may become troublesome. For a successful air traffic control system it is mandatory to satisfy and balance the two most critical goals that are safety and efficiency. Higher scale of monitoring and improvement in efficiency can be attained by maximizing the involvement of automated intelligent systems. However, to what extent machines can replace humans is still a question, because eventually these systems are designed by men and they do not guarantee one hundred percent efficiency. Therefore, apart from developing new techniques that propose safety and efficiency, it is very important to recruit professional that well equipped with the capacity to tackle tough situations. Qualification may be the corner stone for recruitment, but personnel must be equipped with emotional intelligence and the ability to uphold the tasks without being influenced by psychological and physiological stressors (Wiegmann, & Shappell, 2001). Analyses of task on cognitive grounds deals with planning and designing mode of action. It is an obligatory unit of work, because without outlining the objectives and procedures to follow, the conduct of a controller becomes directionless. Controllers in the airways have the role of a guide; it is their duty to facilitate the crew members on board. These personnel are to be trained in such a manner that they are ready to work in the state of emergency, which may be caused by equipment failure, bad weather etc. Cognition of tasks is based on communication. Communication is sometimes carried out by verbal means, and sometimes through digital or visual signals. It is the duty of the controllers to properly use signals, so that the message is delivered to other team members without creating any confusion. To ensure quality performance, an approach that promises safety and efficiency, a sound system management becomes an obvious need. According to Michael et al., (1995): Past flight deck design practices used within the U.S. commercial transport aircraft industry have been highly successful in producing safe and efficient aircraft. However, recent advances in automation have changed the way pilots operate aircraft, and these changes make it necessary to reconsider overall flight deck design. Automated systems have become more complex and numerous, and often their inner functioning is partially or fully opaque to the flight crew. This raises pilot concerns about the trustworthiness of automation, and makes crew aware of all the intricacies of operation that may impact safe flight difficult to achieve. In contrast to a pilot’s job where he is considered responsible for the success of any mission, the nature of flight deck job is such that it is mostly dependent on the use of automated machines. Advances in sensor and data integration technologies now make far more information available than may be prudent to present to the flight crew. The High Speed Civil Transport or the HSCT is likely to bring more challenges with it; the need to process more information relating to sonic boom or the management of speed at subsonic or supersonic levels will make it necessary that information is processed more rapidly and efficiently than ever before. For this reason HSCT or any forth coming technically advanced aircrafts will increase the need of information handling; the basic issues in human usability of complex systems will be magnified (p. 1). A healthy organization is one in which all the members are ready to make their contribution towards obtaining objectives as a unit. To maintain a highly synchronous organisation, there some basic needs that include interpersonal communication among employees, job satisfaction, rewards, team work, work load and vigilance. In aviation industry communication skills are very important, communication barriers may result into accidents of massive proportion (Edkins, 2005). Managing airways is a tough task, because there so many things on stake. A minor mistake may result in loss of lives, money and confidence of a company as an organization. In setups where safety and efficiency are the key to success, there very small margin for error, however, humans are vulnerable at times, and compromise is not an option. Therefore organizations have to provide on job training to its employees so that they could set aside their emotions, fatigue and stress, and work diligently towards acquiring goals as a team. Despite, all the discussion and research regarding aviation, even today the industry is the target of criticism. This is because, whenever there is a failure in aviation, it invites a huge number of audiences, bearing to its massive proportion. Most of the damage is caused by negligence on the part of humans. Careless attitude is intolerable, but it is inevitable while dealing with humans. A single misguided signal can cost life of hundreds. Therefore, apart from developing human centered technologies, it imperative to train individuals in a manner that reduce the chances of error that are caused by human factors. In this regard performance management becomes a key to safety in aviation industry (Hale, Fuchs, Carpenter, & Stanney, 2011). Over the past few decades, study and development of human factor analysis has been a hot topic of research in aviation industry, several models have been hypothesized, tools of investigations have been upgraded and technology has been directed at producing machines and interfaces that are human friendly and well calibrated to minimize errors that are a result of human negligence. The purpose of this research was to outline the various developments that have already occurred in this field, to critically evaluate the course of these developments, analyze the varying trends and to understand the problems that are still a nuisance, and how modern research aims at solving them. The data was obtained from several academic resources, such as journals, theses, books, newsletters and government documents. Literature Review The term human error has its own complexities; some define it as an unacceptable act, other refers it to outcomes that include significant error (Lorenzo, 1990; Swain and Guttman, 1983). Multiple definitions to a single phenomenon reflect the multi-dimensional nature of human error. In an attempt to encompass all the possibilities and causes that give rise to these human associated errors, scientists have tried to arrange them taxonomically and cause wise. The human reliability analysis comes from a much broader origin of probabilistic risk assessment (Rasmussen, 1982). Meanwhile, the other approach as suggested by Kirwan (1992) deals with the classification of human errors. While comparing the two approaches, it is evident that human risk assessment is far superior than the classification offered by Kirwan (1992), because the nature of assessment offered is quiet wide, it deals with problems inherent in a system rather than just qualitatively providing immediate outlook of the human error and its probable causes. Despite, the conflict of understanding between the two approaches, these works have proved to ground breaking as they attempted to study the nature, causes and environmental factors that induce human errors, and these approaches do not shift the blame entirely onto the operators. They aim at considering the larger picture, and providing a direction for researchers to undermine the factors that cause significant error. Suggestions of theoretical nature are helpful without any doubt, but their detection and understanding is far more important. This invites the need for sophisticated measure that can detect errors, and events that lead to their occurrence. Moreover, there has been much debate on how to develop error tolerant designs, instead of error free designs, some of the suggestions have been offered by Rasmussen (1989), like supplying operators with tools to test hypothesis, integrate cues of action, presenting information in simple manner that is conceivable by brains of varying cognition level, establish bars for acceptable performance, develop provisional restrictions on actions visible. According to Hollnagel, an error tolerant system would provide information beforehand to minimize chances of errors, it will compensate for motor and cognitive dysfunction by standardizing the input of data (1990). Changing organizational culture, and altering social norms and value along with individual beliefs may be used to minimize errors within a system (Reason, 1990). From 1970s onwards, one of the primary concerns of aviation community was the involvement of humans in accidents; this gave birth to devise methods and models for undermining human factor. Opting out a model depends entirely on the personnel in charge. Among causal methods/models, their several statistical models available that have been used in the past some of the most common are fault tree analysis (FTA), common cause analysis (CCA), event tree analysis (ETA), TOPAZ, and Bayesian belief network (BBN). All of these methods rely on data collection and statistical analysis; all these models provide quantitative results except for CCA. Alongside causal models, there were models postulated to determine the risk of collisions, they are mainly dominated by Reich’s work. They help in calculating the probability of collision that may occur without proper planning and avoiding air traffic principles. These models are highly complex and skilled individual are required to understand the outcome. Human error models have also been developing along with other models mentioned earlier. Hazard and operability (HAZOP) method is used for determining hazards that are caused by human error. Human error assessment and reduction techniques was developed during the 1980’s, it was use for identifying and quantifying human errors and determine the probability for a hazard to occur particularly under the influence of human factor. Another human error model that came to surface in 1999 was TRACER-Lite also known as technique for the retrospective analysis of cognitive errors. It follows hierarchal task analysis; this model was developed by National Air Traffic Services or NATS (Netjasov & Janic, 2008). The two modern human error models that have been developed in the past decade are human error in air traffic management (HERA) and human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS). HERA has been used for Euro control in 2000’s. This model is based on two grounds, that retrospective and prospective. Retrospective analysis deals with chance of occurrence of an error, while human errors are by prospective analysis. HFACS is being used in United States of America. It divides failures into four categories that are unsafe acts, unsafe pre-conditions for unsafe acts, unsafe supervision, and organizational culture. It deals with immediate as well as latent causes of errors. The problem with both the systems is that they are restricted to special analysts (Netjasov & Janic, 2008 ; Wiegmann, & Shappell, 2001). Machines are invented for helping men; their purpose is to reduce the workload. However, their proper use handling is compulsory. While considering the degree of automation in modern day aviation industry, it can be concluded that today’s operating systems are far more efficient and reliable than the ones that were used a decade ago. Wiener and Cury in 1980 raised a few questions regarding automation; they questioned the extent to which automation reduces human error, shares workload, and the level of awareness among people regarding automation. Despite the development of technologies like auto pilot and satellite surveillance, the debate is still there, because no matter what human involvement cannot be completely eliminated. In a research carried out by Wickens and Kessel (1979) their main focus was on understanding that whether controllers and crew members are well equipped cognitively and trained to use the machines that are being offered by modern day technology. There were cases where people really do not know how to use these machines properly; this was due to lack of training. Therefore, if there is a lack of training there the significance of human error is hard to reduce. However, by using proper training and communication these merits can be established. The degree of automation can vary, the greater the automation, the greater the autonomy of the machines. There are different stages at which automation can be applied. First stage deals with sensing and detection of stimuli, and pre-processing of data. Next stage involves slightly greater amount of autonomy as it manipulates the information and cognition of operations like integration, diagnosis and inference. Third stage involves decision making based on sub- cognitive processing. While at the most advance level machines have the capacity of making range of decisions through opting from the programmed data (Parasuraman & Wickens, 2008). “Problems in advanced commercial aircraft pilot–flight management system (FMS) interaction through multifunction control display units (MCDUs) have been widely reported,” (Kaber, Riley & Tan, 2002, p. 153). The most frequently reported issues in flight management systems according to Sarter (1991) are: the inability of pilot to exercise system activities and predict any violation due to lack of visualizing the intended vertical pat computed by FMS; inability to feed information due non-user-friendly interfaces; lack of feedback and confused interfaces; difficulty in acquiring data and aloofness from the functionality of the system. Haris (2006) explain that: The operation of an airliner is not just about the integration of pilot (huMan) and aircraft (Machine) to perform a flight (or Mission) within the constraints imposed by the physical environment (Medium). This approach needs extending to encompass the societal environment, an additional aspect of the Medium. The role of Management is also central to safety and efficiency (p. 4). Management in an aviation industry is carried out at different scales, and every component of management plays a vital role. The key issues that are dealt at managerial level are of diverse nature, they include maintenance of equipment and airplanes, safety management, flight management, crew management, control room management, cockpit management and operation management. Maintenance of aircrafts is a critical component that ensures safety in aviation, around twelve percent of the aviation accidents are caused by poor maintenance and sloppy inspection. The influence of human factor is great when it comes to maintenance (Lee, Ma, Thimm & Verstraeten, 2008). These failures are attributed to improper organizational management and culture (Edkins, 2005). There is a direct relationship between safety management system and safety culture. The essential components of a safety management system are formulation and implementation of a policy, organization, minimizing risks and establishing performance standards, monitoring and measuring performance, and auditing of performance. Safety is a priority in aviation industry, but how an organization deals with safety and risk management at strategic level, determines the quality of risk assessment of a company. Flight Management Systems have a vital role in the execution of several flight tasks, which includes positioning, navigation, orientation and attitude (Dodd, Eldredge, & Mangold, 1992). They are highly integrated systems, which comprise of flight management computers, control and display units, control panel software database, and auto-throttle system. Crew resource management is an approach through which human errors are managed, however considering it as a tool for removing errors will be a mistake. Moreover, crew management is directed towards establishing a team of dedicated individuals, who are ready to serve in the worst case scenario. The activities carried out by pilots are managed through cockpit task management. Pilots themselves are trained for this purpose. It is their duty to perform the right task at the right time, which refers preparation, initiation, monitoring and termination of cockpit tasks. In a study based on 324 aviation accidents, it was found that 23 percent of these accidents were caused by faulty cockpit management. Pilots are definitely in charge of the plane, but most of their decisions rely on the information provided by the controllers, therefore, the management of control room and signal transmission is also important. A confused signal from a control room can create problems of massive scale. To maintain a sound cockpit environment, it is important to provide proper training to controllers as well, and these two jobs provide minimum margin for human error. Compromise at this stage may prove lethal. Overall managing an aviation industry in a tough task, it needs a well-integrated system that has the ability to convey information without any hindrance, it must have proper tools for investigating errors and monitoring performance of individuals, and it should have a well arranged organizational culture. The idea of transforming the existing National Airspace Systems into Next Generation Air Transportation System requires a thorough understanding and consideration of human factors that create problems. By understanding the nature and cause associated with human factor, it will provide a direction to technology. This will further enhance the element of human centered devices and user friendly interfaces. To deal with human factor related challenges that FAA and NASA have faced in developing new methods or next generation products, they have postulated an approach through which human factor readiness levels could be determined (Arthur et al., 2013). This is due to the fact that every individual has a different level of comfort associated with using newer technology, and people who suffer in using newer products may come under stress which will ultimately lead to increase in human factor related error. “Modern microprocessor technology and display systems make it entirely feasible to automate many of the flight-deck functions previously performed manually,” (Wiener & Curry, 2007, p. 995). “The flight deck automation includes flight directors, autopilots, auto throttles, flight management systems, and centralized warning and alerting systems,” (Funk et al., 1999, pp. 109-110). The automation of flight desk has definitely been a key addition to flight decks, but there have been a lot of debate among scientists and human factor specialist on shifting control to machines (Funk et al., 1999). The future of aircraft design will be highly affected by cyber physical systems research. Some of the key areas where this research will affect the overall aviation industry are the increase in capacity, safety and endurance of an aircraft; integrated flight deck systems, allowing semi-autonomous systems; safety research relative to aircraft control systems (Baheti & Gill, 2011). The project HUMAN is aimed at designing cognitive models, and goal based framework that is task and human centered. Developing plausible psychological models of motors, sensing and thought processes, developing realistic scenarios and implementing sound Artificial Intelligence techniques are not an easy job to do. For this purpose a several layered model has been proposed by the team, with each layer independent of the other. This study aims at producing a flexible design and implementation of cognitive models for predicting pilot errors in cockpit design (Miller & Parasuraman, 2007; van Diggelen, Janssen, Mioch, & Neerincx, 2011). Dorneich, et al., (2011) have commented that: The current Air Traffic Management (ATM) system is already operating at its limits. New innovations in the structure of ATM will be needed to handle the expected increase in traffic. However, such innovations will necessarily impact the distribution of tasks and responsibilities between the air and the ground, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the automation and human operators. These two bottlenecks lead to high workload situations, even under today’s conditions. New concepts like precision 4D path following, self-separation, and closer aircraft spacing will be needed to increase capacity and efficiency. These types of ATM innovations will necessarily affect aircrews operations and will impact their workload (p. 16). According to Harris (2013): Human Factors is no longer simply concerned with the design of equipment and work stations. This old view is being superseded by a systems-based approach which examines all aspects of the working environment and makes little or no attempt to separate the human, machine and task environment. This socio-technical systems approach complements the latest thinking from cognitive science which regards the human use of technological artifacts as a joint cognitive system (p. 125). Conclusion To run an organization it is mandatory to learn about human beings, because organizations will not exist if there are no people in it. While studying human beings it is important to consider their capabilities and their limitation. Human factor refer to the error that are caused due to human limitations. They are reported as one of the major contributors in the aviation accidents. There were several models proposed in the past that either dealt with statistical analysis or cognitive elements of human factor. Similarly the development in the field of automation also attempted at subsiding these errors. Some approaches were aimed at eliminating human factor, but they eventually transformed into error tolerant or error managing systems. FAA and NASA have been working over this matter for past five decades, and they did came up with breakthroughs, however, even till today human factor is an important area of research and it requires better methods and techniques to minimize their prevalence in the aviation industry. The concerns related to human factor started to develop in the later half of the previous century. From 1960s onwards, there has been lot research that was addressed towards finding the causes of the error caused by humans, and finding remedy for these problems. Psychologists, doctors, engineers and mathematicians have all been involved in undermining human factors. Researchers have used two sorts of approaches; the first approach was directed at analyzing data and incidences that were influenced by human factors, while the second approach was aimed at finding solutions. The former approach was usually restricted to single dimension of the problems. The latter approach had a much integrated methodology, which dealt with various dimensions of human factors. From mechanics to company’s CEOs, human factor is visible. Human factors are mainly caused by psychological and physiological problems, like stress, fatigue, fear and etc. All these elements affect the performance of an organization. The margin for committing errors is very limited in the aviation industry, a little bit of carelessness can cause a loss of millions. Moreover, efficiency of system and its safety are a priority in the aviation industry. Safety is directly proportional to maintenance of equipment, especially the aircrafts. While stakes are high in this industry there is a huge burden on shoulders of the people who work in this industry, and this clearly indicates why most of the accidents that occur in the air space are caused by the negligence on the part of controllers, pilots or other crew members. One of the key elements of aviation is information transfer and communications. This basically develops the bridge between how ground staff synchronizes its activities with crew on board. In this regard it is important for an organization to establish specific protocols for communication, which are less prone to human factor. The link between control room and cockpit is similar to that of brain and voluntary muscles. Pilots, definitely have the control of the aircraft in their hands but they still require information and signals from their base to carry out their job. The rapid development in technology has definitely improved communication by shifting it from regard to surveillance satellites. However, it has not been able to eliminate the human factor. Other advances in technology like providing autonomy to machines have been a successful attempt at improving stats related to human factor influence. However, automation has also become a worry, because of the lack of situation awareness, and resistance of human beings to learn and to adapt to new technology, this drives people away from their comfort cause and could cause an increased involvement of human factor in operations. To deal with problems generated by automation, it is usually recommended equipments are designed in manners that are task-centered as well as human centered. Apart from designing statistical models, or improving automation, managing human factor is still important. It requires a sound management of resources. Most of the scientists suggest that on job training and organizational culture are very importing when it comes to managing human factors. Management in aviation is carried out at different levels, such crew resource management, cockpit management, maintenance management, safety and risk management, and operations management. Every task has its own nature, and similarly it has its own importance. For instance operation management deals with various operations that take place in the industry; cockpit management is carried out by pilots and so on. While all these areas have their individual importance, still they are dependent on each other, like controllers offer information to pilots, maintenance and health of an aircraft are directly associated with safety. Therefore, a well-integrated managerial system is required to run an aviation organization. By critically analyzing the developments in the field of aviation associated with human factor, there is still a room for more research. At this point in time most of the research in this field is directed at establishing artificial intelligence models and increasing robotic autonomy. However, another area that has to consider at this point in time is how to train humans in a manner that they can resist the pressure applied on them. This may not be a new idea, but definitely there is a room for a more active and accurate system, that only monitors the performance, but provides a comfort level to users when they are up against difficult tasks, because, at the end of the day one cannot expect humans to act like machines, they should get chances for their mistakes, however, their mistakes should not be allowed to create disaster, rather they must have the access at correcting their mistakes, right there at that moment, this is where computers and other machines can help them by cross checking their actions. Summary The importance of human factors in aviation can highlight by the fact that all the vital activities concerning control, repair and flight and carried out by human beings themselves. Humans are prone to error, sometimes these errors are caused by their own negligence, and sometimes they produced as a result of various environmental factors. Environment offers stress and fear; this may lead to fatigue or other uncomfortable physiological state. In such circumstances the chances for the occurrence of an error are elevated. The reason why human factors are under scrutiny in the arena of research is due the fact that these minor disturbances of psychological or physiological nature may give rise to unforgettable mistakes. Human factors lie at the heart of poor performance of an organization. Therefore, it is important to get a control over them. It is impossible to eliminate the human factors, but their probability of occurrence can be curtailed. Until there have been several models designed for statistically analyzing the relation between causes that result into human errors. Some of the major triggers are organizational culture, lack of training and lack of situation awareness. The study of human factors is of multivariate nature and it cannot be exclusively dealt with statistical quantification. Furthermore, apart from monitoring human factors, it is important to look out for real-time remedy. This will provide a slightly greater margin of relaxation, because, the burden that is upheld by them is already to great considering the high stakes of aviation operations. Most of the researchers believe that error is a part of human nature and it should not be used proof to charge them with guilt. Safety comes first in all sorts of aviation operations, therefore, managing safety protocols and assessing risks is very important, and currently there are several tools available for this purpose. However, there is no reason to use these measures, until human resource is not equipped to deal with them. One of the key elements that deal with safety is the maintenance of aircrafts, and this depends on how repair is carried out by professionals. Moreover crew resource management and cockpit management during flight are equally important. The communication and transmission of information are crucial, but sometimes a minor gesture may create a huge fault. Therefore, special language codes have been developed to eliminate the chances of error due to a verbal fault. The present day research is aimed at developing a multilayered architecture model, that simultaneously deals with monitoring of human factor, providing real time remedy, and using Artificial intelligence to minimize the losses at the hands of humans. The future approach for dealing with human factor must come up with models that could be executed in real life, they should be equipped with options that are easy to be used by the users, they should have a user friendly interface, they must have standard for measurements, and the level of automation should be increased to adaptive mode, where machines could work in unexpected scenarios. References Arthur, J. J., Norman, R. M., Kramer, L. J., Prinzel, L. J., Ellis, K. K., Harrison, S. J., & Comstock, J. R. (2013, May). Enhanced vision flight deck technology for commercial aircraft low-visibility surface operations. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 873707-873707). International Society for Optics and Photonics. Baheti, R., & Gill, H. (2011). Cyber-physical systems. The Impact of Control Technology, 161-166. Dodd, R. S., Eldredge, D., & Mangold, S. J. (1992). A review and discussion of Flight Management System incidents reported to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (No. DOT-VNTSC-FAA-92-2). John A Volpe National Transportation System Center Cambridge, MA. Dorneich, M. C., Passinger, B., Hamblin, C., Keinrath, C., Vašek, J., Whitlow, S. D., & Beekhuyzen, M. (2011, September). The Crew Workload Manager An Open-loop Adaptive System Design for Next Generation Flight Decks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 16-20). SAGE Publications. Edkins, G. D. (2005). A review of the benefits of aviation human factors training.Contemporary issues in human factors and aviation safety, 117-131. Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Human Factors: Flight Standards Service (AFS). Retrieved from: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/human_factors/hf-afs/ Funk, K., Lyall, B., Wilson, J., Vint, R., Niemczyk, M., Suroteguh, C., & Owen, G. (1999). Flight deck automation issues. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(2), 109-123. Hale, K., Fuchs, S., Carpenter, A., & Stanney, K. (2011, September). A Scale for Assessing Human Factors Readiness Levels. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 2030-2034). SAGE Publications. Harris, D. (2013). Distributed cognition in flight operations. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Applications and Services (pp. 125-133). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Harris, D. (2006). The influence of human factors on operational efficiency. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 78(1), 20-25. Helmreich, R. L. (2000). On error management: lessons from aviation. Bmj, 320(7237), 781-785. Hollnagel, E. 1990. The design of error tolerant interfaces. In: Proceedings of The First International Symposium on Ground Data Systems for Spacecraft Control. Darmstadt, Germany, June 26-29. Kaber, D. B., Riley, J. M., & Tan, K. W. (2002). Improved usability of aviation automation through direct manipulation and graphical user interface design. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(2), 153-178. Kirwan, B., 1992a. Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 1: overview of approaches. Applied Ergonomics 23 (5), 299-318. Kirwan, B., 1992b. Human error identification in human reliability assessment. Part 2: detailed comparison of techniques. Applied Ergonomics 23 (6), 371-381 Lee, S. G., Ma, Y. S., Thimm, G. L., & Verstraeten, J. (2008). Product lifecycle management in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul. Computers in Industry, 59(2), 296-303. McDonald, N., Corrigan, S., Daly, C., & Cromie, S. (2000). Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organisations. Safety Science, 34(1), 151-176. Michael T, P., William H, R., Hayes N, P., Kara A, L., & Terence S, A. (1995). A crew-centered flight deck design philosophy for high-speed civil transport (HSCT) aircraft. Miller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,49(1), 57-75. Netjasov, F., & Janic, M. (2008). A review of research on risk and safety modelling in civil aviation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(4), 213-220. Parasuraman, R., & Wickens, C. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 511-520. Rasmussen, J., & Vicente, K. J. (1989). Coping with human errors through system design: implications for ecological interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31(5), 517-534. Rasmussen, J. (1982). Human errors: a taxonomy for describing human malfunctions in indistrial installations. Journal of Occupational Accidents 4, 311-333. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. 1990. Sarter, N. B. (1991). The flight management system—Pilots’ interaction with cockpit automation. IEEE Computers, 23, 1307–1310. Swain, A., & Guttman, H. (1983). Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Poser Plan Applications. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. van Diggelen, J., Janssen, J., Mioch, T., & Neerincx, M. (2011). Flexible Design and Implementation of Cognitive Models for Predicting Pilot Errors in Cockpit Design. In Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation (pp. 147-154). Springer Milan. Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: Application of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Aviation, space, and environmental medicine,72(11), 1006-1016. Wiener, E.L., & Curry, R. E. (1980). Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23(10), 995-1011. Read More