Human Factors in aircraft operations in unfamiliar airfields - Research Paper Example

? Human factors encountered by Aircrew in Unfamiliar Airfields Human factors encountered by Aircrew in Unfamiliar Airfields Name Professor Name Subject Abstract As per a study, about 80% of the aircraft accidents happen during either landing or take-off of jets, and, thus, such accidents occur at close proximaty to an airport. Further, airports with restricted runway capacity and when atmospheric conditions fall below visual flight regulations have caused issues to pilots while landing in unfamiliar airfields. While landing at a new airfield, pilots may face some issues due to the factors like terrain, altitude, weather and also vibration, heat, toxins, lighting in the cockpit. Pilots may resort to unsafe acts, which may culminate into aircraft accidents due to human errors and violations of standard norms. This research essay will focus on the human factors witnessed by the aircrew in unfamiliar airfields and suggest ways and means to avoid and overcome fallacies that may lead to aircraft accidents. Introduction Some of the deadliest aircraft accidents happened not in the air but on the runways of airports. About 583 air passengers were killed in 1977 in the Canary Islands, when two jumbo jets crashed on a runway. A runway incursion accident in Chicago’s Midway airport in 1991 killed 34 air passengers. Unfamiliar braking system resulted in an accident in Chicago’s midway airport in December 2005. When a pilot took a wrong runway for takeoff in Lexington airstrip, about 49 air passengers were killed in August 2006. When the captain was not able to manage for a gusty and strong cross wind during takeoff, the aircraft departed to the side of the runway in December 2008 at Denver International Airport. (NTSB 2012). Airport plays a pivotal role as it is the place where the aircraft is landing, taking off, parking, and taxing. According to ICAO (International Civil Aeronautics Organization), an aviation accident is one, which is happening of a fatal event during the operation of an aircraft. An accident in an airport may involve the following impacts namely as the accident in an airport during landing may involve severe damage to the atmosphere which includes the loss of property or life, and it may also create an acute social affliction. Further, airport accident while landing in a new location may emanate from various environmental factors like failure of equipment, human error and other associated risk elements. (Czerny, 2010, p.4-3). This research essay will conduct analysis about the issues faced by the pilots while landing at unfamiliar airfields and will make suggestion how to overcome the same. Issues Faced by the Pilots in Unfamiliar Airfields while Landing or Takeoff The ultimate safety of the aircraft and passengers are entrusted to the captain of the flight. There is a need on the part of the captain to understand strengths and Achilles' heel of each of the crew members and should be able to assign actions whenever it is needed. Under the Crew Resource Management (CRM), flight crew security is covered. In resolution of any probable security incident, captain is needed to treat and respect all crew members equally and properly. Proper training should be given to crew members to develop a strong state of mental ability for handling any critical situation. Each and every crew member should build up the buoyancy to be aware what is to be done in an emergency scenario and to react suitably when an incident occurs. (Williams & Walltrip, 2004, p354). As per a study, about 80% of the jet aircraft accidents happen during either landing or take-off of flights, and thus such accidents are occurring at the proximate of an airport. Hence, there is a heightened peril of serious injury or death both to passengers and to the nearby communities residing close to the airport. If we analyze the happening of an accident during landing or take –off, one can find many reasons like the type of aircraft involved, the airport infrastructures, human factors and metrological conditions. Wong et al (2008) have drawn up an accident frequency replica constructing on a single database of all pertinent accident types with the compilation and use of normal operation data. Previous empirical studies like Khatwa and Helmreich (1998) and Enders et al (1996) focused on air accidents that happened during takeoff or landing.. Kinderland et al. (2003) in their study exclusively focused on landing overruns related aircraft accidents. The Department for Transport (Dft) of UK in its safety circular has elucidated on third party accidents at the airports and also briefed about the increasing of the control of development in the airport public zone. A study carried out by Sheikhpour, Shirazian and Safa (2012) considered some yardstick like “airframe hours” with regard to kind of aircraft involved during landing and take-off accident. (Sheikhpour, Shirazian and Safa, 2012) The airport authorities and the aircraft manufacturers by accessing the percentage of accidents having a peril higher than a chosen level for aircraft with varied timeframe hours can find out reason by gathering criteria in assessing the quantum of subjected peril in some aircrafts and promising limitations to old operating aircraft to arrive at cost –benefit analysis. Air accidents in a new airfield can occur due to the following reasons like types of navigational aids, orientation and number of runways available, metrological conditions, fleet composition, which is varying from airport to airport and these factors are more significant in prioritizing risk reduction initiatives, which is footed upon the most efficient yardstick associated in some scenarios. Generally , the risk elements that aircrews face in operations from airfields that they are unfamiliar with their aircraft are operational parameters , meteorological scenarios , present features and impediments present in the runway safety area (RSA) and its encompassing setup due to kind of aircraft involved in an accident. Visibility as the Major Factor for Aircraft Accidents in Unfamiliar Airfields Limited visibility is acting as a major factor and about 30% of commercial aviation and about more than half of the other aviation accidents are described as controlled-flight –into-terrain accident. About 75% of General Aviation accidents happened due to instrument metrological scenarios. Restricted or limited visibility also enhances the chances for runway incursions. A study conducted between 2000 and 2003 aircraft accidents revealed that 5.6 runaway incursions were occurred in a million aircraft operations or about 1,474 runway incursions in 262 million aircraft operations. Further, airports with restricted runway capacity and when atmospheric conditions fall below visual flight regulations have caused issues to pilots while landing in unfamiliar airfields. However, visibility issues can be minimized by employing techniques like flight management systems, altitude indicators, radio navigation aids, instrument management systems, which have helped pilots to land at airfields where there is restricted visibility. According to Prinzel et al (2004), synthetic vision system technology is now being employed extensively, which will augment pilot capabilities and reduce the low visibility as a casual element in aviation accidents. (Schmorrow, 2005, p.121). Recent Data on Aircraft Accidents that Involve Unfamiliar Airfields If we analyses the air accidents that happened during 2013, out of four accidents reported, two accidents were due to adverse weather conditions. On January 29, 2013, SCAT Airlines aircraft met with an accident due to thick fog enveloped in the runway in Almaty airport, Kazakhstan. On February 13, 2013, the South Airlines Flight faced an accident due to thick fog on the runway in Donetsk, Ukraine. On April 13, 2013, Lion Air Flight crashed into the ocean while trying to land on the airport at Bali airport, Indonesia and this may be mainly due to pilot errors while landing. On April 29, 2013, National Airline flight met with an accident immediately after the takeoff at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. Human Error as the Cause of Air Accident in Unfamiliar Airfields According to Shappel & Wiegmann (1996), about 60 to 80% of air accidents are occurring mainly due to human errors. Further, airport terrain, lighting, weather, night landing had been cited as the cause of aircraft accidents in the majority of the past empirical studies. According to Wiegmann & Shappell (2003), aviation accidents are typically the outcome of a chain of incidents that often culminate with the perilous acts of aircrew or pilots. According to Reason (1990), unsafe acts by pilots which culminate into aircraft accidents may involve human errors and violations. Human error is being described as authorized demeanor that does not meet the desired results, and violation connote the willful contempt of the regulations and rules. (“Shappel et al., 2006, p.2”). According to Reinhart (1996), physical environment plays a significant role for air accidents while landing in unfamiliar airfields. Physical environment includes terrain, altitude, weather and also vibration, heat, toxins, lighting in the cockpit. For instance, landing when there is bad weather condition minimizes visual cues, which may result in the spatial embarrassment and perceptual errors. Further, excessive heat in the cockpit may result in dehydration, which minimizes the alertness of the pilot thereby impacting his decision-making process and finally, his inability to control the flight. (“Shappel et al., 2006, p.4”). Pilot’s ability while landing may be impacted by technology environment factors like automation and checklist design. Design problem like relationship between controls used to raise and lower the landing gear, and those controls used to raise and lower the flaps. Pilots may get confusion over such similarities resulting in the often raising of the landing gear while still on the ground. According to Wickens & Hollands (2000), highly reliable automation may lead to contentment and overconfidence thereby making the pilots more dependence to automation instead of using their common sense. Moreover, untrustworthy automation may result in disuse of automation and lack of confidence. Unsuitable terrain is also another area of concern while landing and for instance, commuter pilots while landing at Alaska region may have to be familiar with sandbars, frozen ice and other “natural runways” for support. (“Shappel et al., 2006, p.5”). According to Boeing (2005), about 71% of the jet aircraft accidents happened all over the world were mainly during landing and takeoff and comprised of 41% of all third party and onboard accidents. Landing overruns, takeoff overruns, landing undershoots, and crashes immediately after takeoffs are the chief kinds of aircraft accidents reported. In landing overruns, there are additional elements in the accidents that are long touchdown, the presence of ice or rain and high speed during the landing. Majority of the accidents has occurred in the night due to low visibility and the presence of rain or ice. Gushing waters during the heavy downpour is the serious cause for accidents. Visual illusion was the major factor while landing at unfamiliar airfields. (Airport Cooperative Research program, 2008, p.21). The feedback from pilots has indicated many chains of events leading to accidents, including poor visibility, a shorter runway than the pilot was accustomed to, the non-standard circuit and the disruption of the alternator warning light which enhanced a perceived time pressure while landing. It is observed that even senior pilots with long experience do not possess adequate experience to land or takeoff into or out of short airstrips or runways (AAIB, 2007). Difficulties in Modeling Aviation Risks By analyzing incongruities in landing and taking-off, pilots can make good decisions about flying around if the data and information and peril processing competence are offered in real-time. It has been always a challenge to model the aviation risks. For making improvements in the aviation risk modeling, no proper or adequate data is being supplied by the accident investigation report. With the help of standardized reports and forms, the investigator may not fill up all the relevant columns available .Further, in the majority of the cases, the investigator is often omitted to be filled up many of the fields and columns that are available in standardized reports and forms. Further, some significant yardsticks connected with incidents associated to risk studies are unavailable in the standardized forms or the investigator may not be aware of its significance for modeling perils. The accuracy of the model so developed is impacted by the availability of casual factors in large quantum and due to the absence of reliable data. Further, the investigator should also use his judgment to arrive at the modeling and any presumptions that have been made may also impact the modeling and its outcome. Hence, there is a necessity to develop more complete guidance associated to the yardsticks needed to enhance risk modeling in the future. The model so constructed will offer a new stratagem to air accident frequency modeling thereby communicating effective elements and part played by the associated aircraft in the most probable kinds of accident. These models were made feasible employing multimensional quantitative replicas that recognize the most important peril elements. Generally , the risk elements that aircrews face in operations from airfields that they are unfamiliar with their aircraft are operational parameters , meteorological scenarios , present features and impediments present in the runway safety area (RSA) and its encompassing setup due to kind of aircraft involved in an accident. Conclusion The practical solution is to offer more suitable runways to avoid accidents during landing off in unfamiliar airfields. Thus, even, if it is a small airfield, the airfield should be filled with more concrete to facilitate smooth landing and take-off. Nonetheless, given the harsh and remoteness of some of these airfields, offering customized runways may be impracticable. Thus, there is a need to offer some sort of awareness and training of what facilitates a suitable landing area mingled with the establishment of more customized runways which may be the possible solution to minimise the aircraft accidents in unfamiliar airfields. Human error plays a pivotal role in the case of accidents in unfamiliar airfields and, hence, there is an urgent need to offer a foundation for the development, implementation and quantifiable evaluation of putative mitigation and intervention strategies (Shappel et al., 2006, p. 6). As per a major study, about 62% of accidents occurred due to runway incursions, and both ground operation staffs and air traffic controllers are required to play a vital role in making sure that safe airport surface area operation are being carried out. With the help of air traffic controllers, pilots can aware the maximum speed of the winds that might be faced during landing or takeoff thereby facilitating them to make better judgments on runway usage. (NTSB 2012). There should be a review of the existing training given to pilots for landing or takeoff from short airstrips and runaways. In small and unfamiliar airstrip, ground movement safety systems like cockpit moving map exhibits that offer a well-timed caution to pilots to avoid runway incursions. The pilot should always cross check the location of the aircraft at the intended runway before takeoff. New technical instruments like improved final approach runway occupancy signals and runway status lights can offer a direct warning signal to the cockpit thereby any possible delay in warning by the air-traffic controller (Airport Cooperative Research program, 2008). Intensive flight simulator training programs should be inculcated as to how to fact gusty crosswinds, to train the pilots the real situations before they experience the same. References AAIB Bulletin. (2007). Aircraft Accident in short airstrip. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper PA-28-161, G-OBFC 08-07.pdf Airport Cooperative Research program (2008). Analysis of aircraft overruns and undershots for runway safety areas. New York: Transportation Research Board. Czerny, AI. (2010). Airport Congestion Management under Uncertainty. Transportation Research Methodological, 44(3), 4-3 – 4-10. Enders J, Dodd R , Tarrel R, Khatwa R , Roelen A & Karwal ,A.(1996). Airport Safety: A Study of Accidents and Available Approach and Landing Aids. Flight Safety Digest , 15 (3) , 1996. Khatwa R, Helmreich R .(1998). Analysis of Critical Factors during Approach and Landing in Accidents and Normal Flight . Final Report. NTSB. (2012). Improve safety of airport surface operations. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl1_2012.html Schmorrow, D. (2005). Foundations of Augmented Cognition, Volume 11. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Shappel S, Detwiler C, Boquet A & Weigmann D (2006). Human Error and Commercial Aviation Accidents: A Comprehensive, Fine-Grained Analysis Using HFACS. Washington: Federal Aviation Administration Publication. Sheikhpour H, Shirazian G & Safa E. (2012). An Approach on Take-off and Landing Related Aircraft Accidents Involving New Considerations. 2012 International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Engineering ,26. Williams, C & Walltrip, S. (2004). Aircrew Security: A Practical Guide. New Delhi: Ashgate Publishing. Wong DKY, Pitfield DE , Caves RE & Appleyard , AJ. (2009). The Development of a more Risk –Sesitive and Flexible airport Safety area Strategy. New York : Elsevier. Read More