Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey Report - Australian ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFETY SURVEY REPORT 2 Scope This report deals with information supplied by respondents to the Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey and provides a detailed analysis of answers to both the ‘open’ and ‘closed’ questions. The accompanying analysis does not include responses to closed questions by second officers or McDonnell Douglas pilots due to their disproportionately low representation within the sample. However, all written comments made by all respondents have been included and analysed. The survey covers a range of technologies from the early 1980s to the present. However, the survey sought pilots’ perceptions of the technology that they were using. Despite any differences in technology, the Bureau believes that the survey results are applicable to aviation in the Asia-Pacific region. 0 b jectives The objectives of the phase 2 study were to: Determine specific types of human/system interface problems that are occurring on advanced aircraft in service within the Asia-Pacific region; Collect information on flight-deck errors; Assess the severity of errors; Identify design-induced errors; and Identify areas where pilots inappropriately manipulate automated systems. Method Phase 2 included the drafting and distribution of a questionnaire. Questions were based on: personal interviews with flight crew; flight deck observation; and personal interviews with airline management. The draft questionnaire was trialed within two Australian airlines and the results were published in a BASI report (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation 1996). The questionnaire was then modified on the basis of comments provided by respondents via a survey critique. Details of the survey questionnaire are included as the final section of this report. Five thousand and twenty-three survey forms were distributed through the flight safety departments of participating member airlines of the AAPA. One thousand two hundred and sixty-eight surveys were returned by the specified reply date, representing a 25.24% return. Completed questionnaires were returned in sealed envelopes to BASI via the flight safety departments of participating airlines, or for Australian Airlines, via a prepaid envelope. The survey contained 42 attitude probes or Likert scale items designed to elicit pilot opinion over seven topics. A Likert scale is a standard tool in attitude assessment. It is a form of ‘intensity scale’, whereby not only the direction but intensity of the response is measured. An item consists of a ‘probe’, which is a positive or negative statement with which the respondent was asked the degree of agreement/disagreement. The response scale contains an odd number of possible responses, ranging from agree through neutral to strongly disagree. The center response is somewhat ambiguous: it can mean ‘no opinion’, ‘undecided’ or a truly neutral
INTRODUCTION position on the probe. In this study, five response levels were employed: ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neutral’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ (Wiener 1989). Open-ended questions gave respondents the opportunity to provide detailed comments regarding their opinion on specific subjects. The results of the ‘closed’ (Likert scale) questions were recorded in a database before being statistically analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 6 for Windows). The ‘hand-written’, or ‘open’, responses were similarly recorded in a database before being manually analysed by a team of six raters. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were provided to any of the respondents to complete the survey form. Confidentiality Ali volunteers were assured of confidentiality. The survey cover included the following statement: ‘As this survey does not require you to identify yourself, all information supplied is COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL’. The survey form contained no codes that would allow researchers to identify an individual. Survey responses were entered into a database as they were received and no attempt was made to order surveys returned from any particular flight safety department. Arc hiving All survey forms were retained in accordance with the Australian Government Public Service General Disposal Authority No. 14.24.2.1. Statistical analysis All results contained in this report relating to differences between demographic categories (e.g. pilot rank, age, nationality or aircraft manufacturer) are statistically significant. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests. Report - figure and table numbering Numbering of figures and tables in the report does not follow the standard. Beginning at chapter 1 of the ANALYSIS, the numbers allocated to figures and tables reflect those allocated to the corresponding questions in the survey form. For example, fig. B2.4 graphically depicts the distribution of the answers to question 2.4 in part B of the survey form. The sample - summary The following information summarises the demographic data provided in response to questions in part A of the survey. The accompanying analysis does not include information pertaining to second officers or pilots of McDonnell Douglas aircraft due to their disproportionately low representation within this sample. However, written comments made by all pilots have been included and analysed. Table 5.1 shows demographic data for respondents according to pilot rank, age, gender, average experience on type, and average total aeronautical experience. 3
Page 1 and 2: Department of Transport and Regiona
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A
Page 5 and 6: ATC and situational awareness Terra
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bureau of Air S
Page 9: asic automate ations, navigation, s
Page 14 and 15: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFETY
Page 16 and 17: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL AIR TRAFFIC CON
Page 18 and 19: 70% - 60% - AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FIG
Page 20 and 21: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FIGURE B2.4 The
Page 22 and 23: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL the responses t
Page 24 and 25: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL Given direct tr
Page 26 and 27: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL By nominating s
Page 30 and 31: 9 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFE
Page 40 and 41: GENERAL Introduction This chapter a
Page 42 and 43: FIGURE B9.2 Have you detected any F
Page 44 and 45: accident near Cali, Colombia (12 De
Page 46 and 47: GENERAL It appears that much of the
Page 58 and 59: SITUATIONAL AWARENESS SITUATIONAL A
Page 60 and 61: SITUATIONAL AWARENESS FIGURE B4.1 I
Page 62 and 63:
SITUATIONAL. AWARENESS FIGURE B4.4
Page 64 and 65:
SYSTEM DESIGN Introduction Research
Page 66 and 67:
FIGURE B1.2 It is easy to detect wh
Page 68 and 69:
SYSTEMS DESIGN Some reported accide
Page 70 and 71:
Table B5.3 'I am sometimes forced t
Page 72 and 73:
TRAINING Introduction The introduct
Page 74 and 75:
TRAINING The majority of respondent
Page 76 and 77:
FIGURE B8.5 My training has prepare
Page 78 and 79:
Provision of a FMGS for hands-on tr
Page 80 and 81:
TRAINING Im roved tech manuals, e l
Page 82 and 83:
TRAINING The depth of training, the
Page 84 and 85:
WORKLOAD WORKLOAD Introduction The
Page 86 and 87:
FIGURE 86.2 In an emergency, automa
Page 88 and 89:
Normal ops automation is very benef
Page 90 and 91:
A COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Conclusion Although this comparison
Page 98 and 99:
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFETY
Page 100 and 101:
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
Page 102 and 103:
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 6. MODES
Page 104 and 105:
REFERENCES Aeronautica Civil of the
Page 106 and 107:
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS e SURV
Page 108 and 109:
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL Questions 2.1 t
Page 110 and 111:
CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY
show all

Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey Report - Australian ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?