Air Force Aviation Accidents - Research Paper Example

Unit Accidents are inevitable because they are not only part of human life, but also intensified by the technologies developed by man. For instance, the aviation industry has witnessed several accidents most of which are attributed to human error. This paper analyses human errors as the main cause of aviation accident, especially in the United States. Human error occurs in the form of system errors arising from people failing to do their duties, failures resulting from wrong steps and decisions, and finally, errors resulting from the deviation from standards, or the aviation staff failing to follow the standard procedures. Studies show that out of the aviation accidents that occur in the US, 60% to 80% are due to human error. Loss of or poor Crew Resource Management (CRM) facilitates most of these accidents. US airlines fail to give their crew proper training and CRM, which are very vital in preventing human errors in the aviation industry. Another important factor in human errors and aviation accidents is the ‘Swiss cheese model’ in which defensive systems consists of slices or pieces, as well as holes resulting from opening, and displacement of the slices, which result in human error. Since human errors occur due to psychological and physiological factors, aviation psychology is an effective solution for human failures in aviation. In addition, there should be proper training and CRM for aviation crew focusing on human factors. Human Error and Aircraft Accidents Accidents are part of our everyday life. Most of these accidents are attributed to the mistakes we make. Many theories link accidents to systems failure other than human errors. However, there is increasing focus on human error as one of the major causes of accidents. Error classification method was developed to explain the various causes of human error in aviation. Error classification method analyzes the ways in, which people contribute to system reliability or the system failure. Many aircraft accidents result from human error other than systems failure. When investigating accidents, there should be a focus on human errors that might have led to an aviation accident. This is because system failures result from the engineers’ failure or errors in making the craft. This research essay seeks to justify the argument that human errors are the main factors behind aviation related accidents. According Reason, high technology systems consist of defensive layers that either are engineered or rely on people and administrative procedures (6). Engineered defensive systems include physical barriers and alarms. The function of these models is to prevent hazards. An ideal world requires that all these defensive systems work together. However, in real life, these systems are found in pieces or slices. There are holes and mistakes made in real life that result from the opening, closing, and displacement of the slices. Therefore, according to ‘Swiss cheese model’, slices within the systems result in human errors that are responsible for major aviation accidents (Reason 16). Human errors are defined in three broad ways. First, error is the cause of failure, for example, the supervisor failing to provide guidance or the crew failing to control the craft. The failures of these persons to perform their duties result in errors that lead to system failure. The second definition of errors according to Gibb & Wes identifies errors as failures in themselves (305). This category argues that wrong steps, decisions, and actions are errors in themselves. This definition bases its argument on decision errors, skill based errors and perceptual. The third definition of error recognizes an error as a process of deviation from the standard. Deviation occurs when people fail to observe operation procedures, violate the procedures that are exceptional or routine whether intentionally or unintentionally (Gibb & Wes 307). Human errors occur because of the psychological and physiological aspects of human nature such as fatigue, fear, and workload. Other factors like cognitive overload, imperfect information and an inter-personal information, and poor decision-making also contributes to human errors that result in aircraft accidents (Kletz 61). Other errors occur because of the loss of Crew Resource Management (CRM) that results in failure to invest on realistic grounds. Pilots’ failure to adhere to gravity situations that would ensure that the person keeps himself and his passengers safe are other failures that occur because of the human errors. Human noncompliance and loss of situation awareness also cause human error and increases chances of aviation accidents (Kletz 61). Many aircraft accidents that have taken place occurred because of human failures. For example, the Eastern Airlines aircraft was involved in an accident on 29 December 1972, in which it crashed into the Florida Everglades. Research on the accident showed that the aircraft had experienced minor technical failure, but crushed because no one was operating it since all the crew were busy attending to a bulb problem. Despite the alarm, the crew failed to notice that the autopilot had left the plane causing it to a descent. Report on the accident concluded that the accident resulted from the failure of the flight crew to monitor the flight during the last few minutes before the accident. The report added that the flight crew focused on the malfunction of the bulb; thus, failed to notice that the plane was landing on a gear position (Harris 8). Technical errors result in aviation accidents, for instance, poor plane designs by engineers. For example, the crash of Air Inter Flight 148 in Mont Sainte-Odile IN 1992 was partly attributed to human error of certain design aspects of the craft. This accident was due to the crew’s choice of wrong flight mode and flight, management mode and guidance system that involved vertical speed and flight mode system (Decker 97). The design of the plane influenced the crash because the crew had difficulty in establishing the correct place for some of the control systems. This resulted from the lack of information by the crew, and thus, inability to realign the craft leading to high-speed landing. Moreover, the crew could have noticed the high-speed landing, but there was poor CRM on the flight deck. Poor CRM led to the lack of significant checks and cross-checks on the aircraft. Additionally, the engineers were blamed for not designing the plane in a practical way. The designers failed to equip the plane with ground proximity warning; the crew could not rely the potential accident (Dekker 98). According to Wiegman and Shapell, human errors claim about 60% to 80% of the total aviation and military accidents in US (68). Out of the 289 aircraft accidents, 251 were caused by the crews’ failure to process information. Attention errors claimed 7.28%, and the sensory errors claimed 2.84% of the total aircraft accidents. Wrong decision response errors claimed serious accidents of about 34.83%. Model on internal human functional showed that 91.3% of the total accidents were pilot causal. These accidents occur because of the pilots’ errors in processing information, diagnosing information, goal setting, procedure selection, and the choice of actions errors (Wiegmann & Shappell 70). Among the major accidents in this category, goal setting was identified as a major contributor with 15.08% followed by strategy errors that a claimed 14.31% of the total major accidents. Minor accidents were attributed to procedural errors that caused 44.99% of the total minor accidents. Minor accidents also occurred because of action errors (Wiegmann & Shappell 75). Similarly, a study using Unsafe Acts model showed that human errors claim 91.3% of the total aircraft accidents. This plan classifies human errors as intended actions like errors or violations that claim 74.54% of the total crew accidents, and unintended actions like slips and lapses that contributed 25.46% (Wiegmam & Shappell 69). The highest number of accidents resulted from intended performance errors that caused 57.3% of the total crew accidents. Based on this evidence, one can see that indeed human factors that are intentional can result in crew accidents. Actions by crews like goal setting and strategy influence the type of accidents that happen in the aircraft. Analysis on the mishaps in the American Air Force shows that human errors claim a high percentage of aircraft accidents (Hobbs & Kanki 9). Mishaps contribute to fatal accidents that lead to permanent disability, death, and destruction of the aircrafts. Mishaps cost the US economy over $1 million. The researchers argued that, despite CRM and Operational Risk Management education and trainings on ways of overcoming airplane mishaps, the major factor contributing to accidents is mishaps. For example, in August 2002, a special operations aircraft, MC-130H hit ridgeline in Puerto Rico killing all its crewmembers. A report on the accident showed that the accident occurred because of the crews’ loss of situational awareness and failure to provide an effective response to terrain warnings. The air crash that took place in 2005 when the US Air Force was flying at night in its training mission near the mountains of Alabama was also attributed to human errors. Report on the accident concluded that the accident did not result from any mechanical problems but on, “… a series of critical errors by flight deck crew led to the special operations plane being trapped as it flew too low and too slow in the remote valley.” (Hobbs & Kanki 13). Conclusively, human errors claim a high percentage of aircraft accidents. The data in this research justifies the argument that human errors are the major cause of aircraft accidents. Solutions to US aircraft accidents should focus on providing solutions to the human errors that result from misunderstanding and miscommunication. Aviation psychology offers solution to accidents related to human failures by focusing on the psychological and physiological factors that contribute to aircrafts. Despite the efforts to solve crew problems, many accidents still occur because of personal failure to adhere to the set regulations and procedures. The US airline, therefore, should focus on the human factors in their pilot training and CRM in order to solve aircraft accidents. Works cited Dekker, Sydney “Illusions of explanation: A critical essay on error categorization.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology (2003): 95-106. Print. Harris, Don. Improving Aircraft Safety: British Psychological Society vol 27no, February 2014 print Hobbs, A. N. & Kanki, B. G. “Patterns of error in confidential maintenance incident reports.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology (2008): 5-16. Print. Gibb, Randall W. and Wes, Olson. "Classification of Air Force Aviation Accidents: Mishap Trends and Prevention." International Journal of Aviation Psychology (2008): 304-325. Print. Reason J. Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. Print. Kletz, Trevor A. An Engineers View of Human Error. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK: IChemE, 2008. Print. Wiegmann, Douglas & Shappell, Scott. “The Human Factors of Postaccident Data: Applying Theoretical Taxonomies of Human Errors.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology (1997): 67-81. Print. Read More