• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

人为失误与商业航空事故:基于人为因素分析与分类系统的分析

Human error and commercial aviation accidents: an analysis using the human factors analysis and classification system.

作者信息

Shappell Scott, Detwiler Cristy, Holcomb Kali, Hackworth Carla, Boquet Albert, Wiegmann Douglas A

机构信息

Clemson University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 121 Freeman Hall, Box 340920, Clemson, SC 29634-0920, USA.

出版信息

Hum Factors. 2007 Apr;49(2):227-42. doi: 10.1518/001872007X312469.

DOI:10.1518/001872007X312469
PMID:17447665
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to extend previous examinations of aviation accidents to include specific aircrew, environmental, supervisory, and organizational factors associated with two types of commercial aviation (air carrier and commuter/ on-demand) accidents using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS).

BACKGROUND

HFACS is a theoretically based tool for investigating and analyzing human error associated with accidents and incidents. Previous research has shown that HFACS can be reliably used to identify human factors trends associated with military and general aviation accidents.

METHOD

Using data obtained from both the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, 6 pilot-raters classified aircrew, supervisory, organizational, and environmental causal factors associated with 1020 commercial aviation accidents that occurred over a 13-year period.

RESULTS

The majority of accident causal factors were attributed to aircrew and the environment, with decidedly fewer associated with supervisory and organizational causes. Comparisons were made between HFACS causal categories and traditional situational variables such as visual conditions, injury severity, and regional differences.

CONCLUSION

These data will provide support for the continuation, modification, and/or development of interventions aimed at commercial aviation safety.

APPLICATION

HFACS provides a tool for assessing human factors associated with accidents and incidents.

摘要

目的

本研究的目的是扩展先前对航空事故的调查,以使用人为因素分析与分类系统(HFACS),纳入与两类商业航空(航空公司和通勤/按需航空)事故相关的特定机组人员、环境、监管和组织因素。

背景

HFACS是一种基于理论的工具,用于调查和分析与事故及事件相关的人为错误。先前的研究表明,HFACS可可靠地用于识别与军事和通用航空事故相关的人为因素趋势。

方法

利用从美国国家运输安全委员会和联邦航空管理局获得的数据,6名飞行员评级员对13年期间发生的1020起商业航空事故相关的机组人员、监管、组织和环境因果因素进行了分类。

结果

大多数事故因果因素归因于机组人员和环境,与监管和组织原因相关的明显较少。对HFACS因果类别与传统情境变量(如视觉条件、伤害严重程度和地区差异)进行了比较。

结论

这些数据将为旨在提高商业航空安全性的干预措施的持续、修改和/或开发提供支持。

应用

HFACS提供了一种评估与事故及事件相关的人为因素的工具。

相似文献

1
Human error and commercial aviation accidents: an analysis using the human factors analysis and classification system.人为失误与商业航空事故:基于人为因素分析与分类系统的分析
Hum Factors. 2007 Apr;49(2):227-42. doi: 10.1518/001872007X312469.
2
Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: application of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification system (HFACS).商业航空事故的人为错误分析:人为因素分析与分类系统(HFACS)的应用。
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001 Nov;72(11):1006-16.
3
Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents.飞行员失误及其与更高组织层面的关系:对523起事故的人因分析与分类系统(HFACS)分析
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006 Oct;77(10):1056-61.
4
Over a decade of UAV incidents: A human factors analysis of causal factors.十余年无人机事故:人为因素对事故成因的分析。
Appl Ergon. 2024 Nov;121:104355. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104355. Epub 2024 Jul 18.
5
Eastern minds in western cockpits: meta-analysis of human factors in mishaps from three nations.西方驾驶舱中的东方思维:对三个国家事故中人为因素的荟萃分析
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007 Apr;78(4):420-5.
6
Human factors analysis and classification system applied to civil aircraft accidents in India.应用于印度民航事故的人为因素分析与分类系统。
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005 May;76(5):501-5.
7
Development and validation of Aviation Causal Contributors for Error Reporting Systems (ACCERS).航空差错报告系统因果因素(ACCERS)的开发与验证
Hum Factors. 2007 Apr;49(2):185-99. doi: 10.1518/001872007X312432.
8
Analysis of 2004 German general aviation aircraft accidents according to the HFACS model.根据HFACS模型对2004年德国通用航空飞机事故进行分析。
Air Med J. 2006 Nov-Dec;25(6):265-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2006.03.003.
9
Arabian, Asian, western: a cross-cultural comparison of aircraft accidents from human factor perspectives.阿拉伯、亚洲、西方:从人为因素角度对飞机事故的跨文化比较。
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2017 Sep;23(3):366-373. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2016.1190233. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
10
Analysis of Air Taxi Accidents (20042018) and Associated Human Factors by Aircraft Performance Class.航空出租车事故(2004-2018 年)与按飞机性能分类的相关人为因素分析。
Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021 May 1;92(5):294-302. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.5799.2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of HD-tDCS targeting the DLPFC on cognitive ability and flight simulation performance in healthy adults.针对健康成年人背外侧前额叶皮质进行的高频重复经颅直流电刺激对认知能力和飞行模拟表现的影响。
Neurol Sci. 2025 Sep 15. doi: 10.1007/s10072-025-08491-2.
2
An in-flight multimodal data collection method for assessing pilot cognitive states and performance in general aviation.一种用于评估通用航空中飞行员认知状态和表现的飞行中多模态数据收集方法。
MethodsX. 2025 Aug 27;15:103589. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2025.103589. eCollection 2025 Dec.
3
Toward a Demsetzian Knowledge Theory.
迈向德姆塞茨式知识理论。
J Knowl Econ. 2022 Feb 11:1-15. doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00901-6.
4
The effects of psychological safety and employee voice behavior on flight attendants' mindful safety practices adoption.心理安全和员工发言权对空乘人员采取正念安全实践的影响。
Front Public Health. 2024 Sep 11;12:1398815. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1398815. eCollection 2024.
5
Flight safety assessment based on a modified human error risk quantification approach.基于改进的人为差错风险量化方法的飞行安全评估。
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 29;19(4):e0302511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302511. eCollection 2024.
6
Relationship between sleep quality and gravitational Tolerance.睡眠质量与重力耐受度的关系。
Sleep Breath. 2024 Jun;28(3):1223-1229. doi: 10.1007/s11325-023-02987-x. Epub 2024 Feb 3.
7
Learning from past in the aircraft maintenance industry: An empirical evaluation in the safety management framework.从航空维修行业的过去中学习:安全管理框架中的实证评估
Heliyon. 2023 Oct 28;9(11):e21620. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21620. eCollection 2023 Nov.
8
Examining post-error performance in a complex multitasking environment.检查复杂多任务环境中的错误后表现。
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2023 Oct 20;8(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s41235-023-00512-y.
9
Quantification of human behavior levels by extending Rasmussen's SRK model and the effects of time pressure and training on the levels switching.通过扩展拉斯穆森的SRK模型对人类行为水平进行量化以及时间压力和培训对水平转换的影响。
Heliyon. 2023 Mar 29;9(4):e15019. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15019. eCollection 2023 Apr.
10
Multi-Institutional Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Incident Learning: Evaluation of Safety Barriers Using a Human Factors Analysis and Classification System.多机构立体定向体部放射治疗事故学习:使用人为因素分析和分类系统评估安全屏障。
J Patient Saf. 2023 Jan 1;19(1):e18-e24. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001071. Epub 2022 Aug 10.