Safety and Accident Investigation Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom.
Front Public Health. 2023 May 5;11:1144921. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144921. eCollection 2023.
In the aviation industry, safety management has moved away from capturing frontline failures toward the management of systemic conditions through organizational safety management systems (SMS). However, subjective differences can influence the classification of active failures and their associated systemic precursors. With levels of professional experience known to influence safety attitudes, the present research examines whether experience levels among airline pilots had an impact on the classification of causal factors using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Differences in the paths of association between categories were evaluated in an open-system context.
Pilots working in a large, international airline were categorized into high (≥10,000 total flight hours) and low (<10,000 h) experience groups and asked to classify aircraft accident causal factors using the HFACS framework. One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to determine experience effects on the utilization of the HFACS categories, and chi-squared analyses were used to assess the strength of association between different categories within the framework.
Results from 144 valid responses revealed differences in the attribution of human factors conditions. The high experience group was more inclined to attribute deficiencies to high-level precursors and found fewer paths of associations between different categories. In contrast, the low experience group presented a greater number of associations and was comparatively more affected by stress and uncertainty conditions.
The results confirm that the classification of safety factors can be influenced by professional experience, with hierarchical power distance impacting the attribution of failures to higher-level organizational faults. Different paths of association between the two groups also suggest that safety interventions can be targeted through different entry points. Where multiple latent conditions are associated, the selection of safety interventions should be made with consideration of the concerns, influences, and actions across the entire system. Higher-level anthropological interventions can change the interactive interfaces affecting concerns, influences, and actions across all levels, whereas frontline-level functional interventions are more efficient for failures linked to many precursor categories.
在航空业,安全管理已经从捕捉一线故障转向通过组织安全管理系统 (SMS) 管理系统条件。然而,主观差异会影响主动故障的分类及其相关系统前体。由于职业经验水平已知会影响安全态度,本研究使用人为因素分析和分类系统 (HFACS) 检查航空公司飞行员的经验水平是否对因果因素的分类产生影响。在开放系统环境中评估了类别之间关联路径的差异。
将在一家大型国际航空公司工作的飞行员分为高(总飞行时间≥10,000 小时)和低(<10,000 小时)经验组,并要求他们使用 HFACS 框架对飞机事故因果因素进行分类。进行单因素方差分析以确定经验对 HFACS 类别的利用的影响,并使用卡方分析评估框架内不同类别的关联强度。
从 144 份有效回复中得出的结果显示,人为因素条件的归因存在差异。高经验组更倾向于将缺陷归因于高级别前体,并发现不同类别之间的关联路径较少。相比之下,低经验组呈现出更多的关联,并且受到压力和不确定性条件的影响更大。
结果证实,安全因素的分类可能会受到专业经验的影响,层次权力距离会影响将故障归因于更高层次的组织故障的倾向。两组之间不同的关联路径还表明,可以通过不同的切入点来针对安全干预措施。当多个潜在条件相关联时,选择安全干预措施应考虑整个系统中的关注点、影响和行动。更高层次的人类学干预可以改变影响所有层面的关注点、影响和行动的交互界面,而一线层面的功能干预对于与许多前体类别相关的故障更有效。