[SystemSafety] HC2AS - Human Contribution to Aviation Safety

[Peter Bishop]

Nice to see someone asking the contrarian question.
- the positive contribution to safety by the human seems to get very
little attention/credit.

While not safety related, I know of a funds transfer system (now
replaced) that had a software-related problem every day or so. But no
money was ever lost and (externally) the system as a whole was extremely
reliable. This was due to human interventions that analysed and fixed
problems when they occurred.

A naive observer might give the credit to the computer system alone.

Peter Bishop


On 06/06/2018 17:06, Smith, Brian E. (ARC-TH) wrote:
> Hey everyone,  I’d appreciate the insights of you safety elders (and
> youngers!) on this topic…
> 
> _Hypothesis_: While it is variously cited that human error is a causal
> factor in 40 to 70% of fatal aviation accidents, there are so few such
> fatal events that consequential human error is actually quite rare.  We
> are currently enjoying a record level of safety in Western commercial
> aviation.  Human actors (flight crew, ATC, airline operations centers,
> maintenance, etc.) with their real-time problem solving ability and
> resilience are a major reason today’s aviation system is as safe as it
> is.  Granted, the role of advanced, reliable technology such as modern
> high-bypass ratio jet engines and “automation” avionics is not to be
> underestimated.
> 
> _Question #1_: By what mechanism(s) can we quantify the human
> contribution to aviation safety?
> 
>     Textual analysis of narrative incident reports can produce word
>     counts of phrases that are indicative of, say, flight-crew problem
>     solving.  The ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System - NASA
>     <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj4_8fArb_bAhVCtlMKHSNSD3cQFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fasrs.arc.nasa.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw0W-4li6cnnAwT4lnj-PV3_> has
>     a so-called “positive taxonomy” that can be used to code reports for
>     the good actions that were reported that keep an incident from
>     turning into a smoking hole.  Other instruments such as the Normal
>     Operations Safety Survey (NOSS) | Eurocontrol
>     <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjL66zNrb_bAhUJ4VMKHQkxCiIQFgg1MAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurocontrol.int%2Farticles%2Fnormal-operations-safety-survey-noss&usg=AOvVaw2qaUd3clwQZhlWsrz1hoVv> are
>     based on a threat and error model "the underlying principles of
>     which claim that routine threats to the safety integrity of the
>     system are constantly being managed by the system before they lead
>     to serious outcomes.”
> 
>     It is hoped that perhaps buried in digital Flight Operations Quality
>     Assurance – FOQA
>     <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjboI-Grr_bAhVOylMKHRuxASYQFghFMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffoqa.com%2F&usg=AOvVaw3hFTKFpayhMIQlbaUvnD0_> –
>     data or similar are telltale signatures of successful intervention
>     by humans in adverse events.
> 
> 
> _Question #2_: Have any of you examples from other industries in which
> human problem solving ability has been quantified in novel ways?
> 
>     Inasmuch as humans are a key component of the Software – Hardware –
>     Environment – Liveware/Liveware (SHELL) organizational model, it
>     would be great to have hard evidence of the human contribution to
>     safety of operations within this framework.  Such evidence would be
>     of great value in designing and testing the advanced technologies,
>     functions, and procedures of future aviation systems.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your insights!
> 
> Brian Smith, Human Systems Integration Division, NASA Ames Research Center
> 
>   * "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." - Popular
>     Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.
>   * "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
>     with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
>     fad that won't last out the year." - Editor in charge of business
>     books for Prentice Hall, 1957.
>   * There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -
>     Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
>   * "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn
>     better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." - A Yale University
>     management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing
>     reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal
>     Express.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> 

-- 

Peter Bishop
Chief Scientist
Adelard LLP
24 Waterside, 44-48 Wharf Rd, London N1 7UX
http://www.adelard.com
Recep:  +44-(0)20-7832 5850
Direct: +44-(0)20-7832 5855

Registered office: 5th Floor, Ashford Commercial Quarter, 1 Dover Place,
Ashford, Kent TN23 1FB
Registered in England & Wales no. OC 304551. VAT no. 454 489808

This e-mail, and any attachments, is confidential and for the use of
the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please
telephone 020 7832 5850. We do not accept legal responsibility for
this e-mail or any viruses.