I help in giving human factor training in both the start up phase and in the biennial continuous training. I am a bit tired of my students...especially those in aviation long term, being disillusioned in this subject. I have tried to find statistics or information where I can show that sitting the human factor training has in fact helped in the prevention of accidents and incidents in the maintenance environment. But have been unsuccessful in finding this information. Wondering if anyone knows where I could find this? Thanking you in advance. :)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it would be easier to find examples of where a lack of focus on human factors has led to incidents or accidents. An example of this that comes to my mind is British Airways 5390. $\endgroup$ – user Mar 6 '19 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ @aCVn A good example; however it doesn’t of course answer the question whether the continuation training provides any benefit over a single initial training. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Mar 6 '19 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CptReynolds It also doesn't provide any information or statistics relating to its preventing accidents. Hence a comment; hopefully useful, but not an answer to the question OP asked. $\endgroup$ – user Mar 7 '19 at 7:37
  • $\begingroup$ @aCVn Of course. It’s a perfect example! $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Mar 7 '19 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes StephenS, agree with you. have had a class now that say exactly the same thing... they zone out. But not running the courese and not paying attention is not going to solve it either. Thats why I was hoping to see stats on how things have improved since running the training. We have this figure of 80%of maintenance errors are caused by HF, so how come we cant find how "its changed" in the last 20-30 years. $\endgroup$ – Maria Apr 8 '19 at 13:22

A student of mine, who has a background in industrial engineering and is an emergency medicine physician, has morphed his career to include the application of CRM into emergency medicine and operating room procedures. The health industry has in general been moving that way because it is saving lives and lawsuits.

Several people have published retrospective analysis of aviation accidents, which tend to contrast the kinds of errors which occurred prior to CRM, and the changes in flight deck politics.

Military team operations, firefighting and other industry segments have started incorporating CRM into their training, and with measurable result.

Much of CRM today was developed in response to significant aircraft disasters in the 1970's coupled with research at NASA and some universities which provided more insight as to how crews work together. As an example, the unquestioned authority of the senior captain, was a factor in an alarming number of major accidents. That protocol has been substantially replaced with a more collaborative protocol, and there are fewer accidents involving the same aspects of flight crew dynamics.

The medical application paper referenced below probably has statistics and material you might find particularly useful in your training.

Journal Articles: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327108ijap0104_3

A medical application reference which talks about lessons learned in aviation: https://www.emsreference.com/printpdf/47

A scholarly critical data driven analysis: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a502230.pdf

Technological advances continue to attempt to improve reliability and safety in aviation. Design considerations throughout the acquisition process must also continue to expound on integrating humans, including our cognitive and physiological capabilities, as fundamental aspects of aviation systems. Nevertheless, CRM training continues to be the primary method in mitigating the number of mishaps due to human crew coordination error in aviation. The program must go beyond simple training requirements and become more in grained into the culture. Perhaps the evidence found in this study suggests a transformation of cultural acceptance is gradually occurring.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you mongo for that. Very informative. Alot of reading, and will definitely read it for inspiration. I appreciate you taking the time :) $\endgroup$ – Maria Mar 7 '19 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ Good explanation @mongo. Look up Korean Air and CRM (google Korean Air and CRM) for an example like the one you describe: cultural barriers between Captains and FOs were behind a number of crashes, until KE hired an American safety expert to help them implement good CRM, with a corresponding decrease in accidents. This case history is well-understood in the commercial airline industry, and the google search will refer you to some good information, if not papers. $\endgroup$ – Pete855217 Mar 13 '19 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Pete, I agree, it IS a good example. But only thing is that there was an extreme view to start with... I have students where this kinda of behaviour is worlds apart. They are used to a flatter structure, so understanding the need for CRM training in these situations are beneficial and needed. It would be nice to see some concrete figures.. like in the figure that 80 of Aircraft maintenance errors are human factors... but thats from the 2000's so thinking now its almost 20 years of practicing HF training, so would be good to see that now its down to 60% for example.. to show its helping $\endgroup$ – Maria Mar 15 '19 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Maria, please consider that CRM and HF practices have been in place long before FAA and other agency popularization. For example, go back to the checklists read by the non-flying pilot or flight engineer during WWII. Those were designed to have a team work together to reduce risk. The institution of CRM was not one event, rather it is a continuum. Clearly, though, after notable crashes in the 70's there was more emphasis on the ability of any crew member to challenge another, and that aspect marks a notable change in CRM approaches. $\endgroup$ – mongo Mar 15 '19 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ Good point Mongo :) $\endgroup$ – Maria Mar 19 '19 at 10:49

Your problem is probably because you are searching for data using the term "human factors" when you should use the term "Crew Resource Management", which is the aviation term for it. Here is a pretty good Flight Safety.org PP presentation that may work for your purposes.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ It is called “human factors” when training ground staff e.g. MRO personnel. I can vouch for it being a tad repetitive when the same 4+ hrs CBT is run through every two years or so. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Mar 6 '19 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your replies. Thats a good point John, will research using Crew Resource Managment. And Cpt Reynolds you are correct when it is for MRO personnel. I fell at this stage I need hard facts to show that the repetitive training does actually mean something. We dont have this on CBT and think its a great advantage and wish to keep it that way. $\endgroup$ – Maria Mar 7 '19 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ Of course CRM isn't the sole reason for the improvement in safety. In my opinion the other really major factor is the introduction of the 2D moving navigational map made possible by TV tube displays (glass cockpit). The reduction in mental workload was absolutely massive because suddenly you didn't have to maintain a mental image of your situation based on indications from dials. But CRM has had a broadly holistic effect on operational safety in general. $\endgroup$ – John K Mar 7 '19 at 14:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.