Human Factors Analysis of Air Traffic Safety Based on HFACS-BN Model
Source abstract
Abstract
Air traffic control (ATC) performance is important to ensure flight safety and the sustainability of aviation growth. To better evaluate the performance of ATC, this paper introduces the HFACS-BN model (HFACS: Human factors analysis and classification system; BN: Bayesian network), which can be combined with the subjective information of relevant experts and the objective data of accident reports to obtain more accurate evaluation results. The human factors of ATC in this paper are derived from screening and analysis of 142 civil and general aviation accidents/incidents related to ATC human factors worldwide from 1980 to 2019, among which the most important 25 HFs are selected to construct the evaluation model. The authors designed and implemented a questionnaire survey based on the HFACS framework and collected valid data from 26 frontline air traffic controllers (ATCO) and experts related to ATC in 2019. Combining the responses with objective data, the noisy MAX model is used to calculate the conditional probability table. The results showed that, among the four levels of human factors, unsafe acts had the greatest influence on ATC Performance (79.4%), while preconditions for safe acts contributed the least (40.3%). The sensitivity analysis indicates the order of major human factors influencing the performance of ATC. Finally, this study contributes to the literature in terms of methodological development and expert empirical analysis, providing data support for human error management intervention of ATC in aviation safety.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk and Safety Analysis · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
School of Communication, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200240, China
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Human factors and aviation safety: What the industry has, what the industry needs10.1080/001401300409134 ↗
2. Technological support for decision making in a safety critical environment10.1016/0925-7535(94)00016-V ↗
3. The human operator in air traffic control systems10.1080/00140137108931274 ↗
4. Human performance interfaces in air traffic control10.1016/j.apergo.2009.06.002 ↗
5. Isaac, A.R., and Ruitenberg, B. (2017). Air Traffic Control: Human Performance Factors, Routledge.10.4324/9781315263076 ↗
6. Zhou, T., Zhang, J., and Baasansuren, D. (2018). A Hybrid HFACS-BN Model for Analysis of Mongolian Aviation Professionals’ Awareness of Human Factors Related to Aviation Safety. Sustainability, 10.10.3390/su10124522 ↗
7. Wiegmann, D.A., and Shappell, S.A. (2017). A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System, Routledge.10.4324/9781315263878 ↗
8. Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00010-8 ↗
9. Chen, W., and Huang, S. (2018). Evaluating Flight Crew Performance by a Bayesian Network Model. Entropy, 20.10.3390/e20030178 ↗
10. Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: application of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification system (HFACS)
11. Shappell, S.A., and Wiegmann, D.A. (2003, January 14–17). Reshaping the way we look at general aviation accidents using the human factors analysis and classification system. Proceedings of the International Symposiumon Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH, USA.
12. Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident investigations10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.013 ↗
13. Classification of errors contributing to rail incidents and accidents: A comparison of two human error identification techniques10.1016/j.ssci.2008.09.012 ↗
14. From land-to water-use-planning: A consequence based case-study related to cruise ship risk10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.024 ↗
15. Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents10.1016/j.aap.2008.09.004 ↗
16. An investigation of air accidents in Nigeria using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) framework10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.11.004 ↗
17. A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.035 ↗
18. Díez, F.J.J.U.i.A.I. (1993). Parameter adjustment in Bayes networks. The generalized noisy OR–gate. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-1-4832-1451-1.50016-0 ↗
19. Heijden, M.V.D., and Hommersom, A. (2014, January 17–19). Causal Independence Models for Continuous Time Bayesian Networks. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Probabilistic Graphical Models, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
20. Shappell, S.A., and Wiegmann, D.A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system--HFACS.
21. Operator error and system deficiencies: analysis of 508 mining incidents and accidents from Queensland, Australia using HFACS10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.018 ↗
22. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006 ↗
23. Pearl, J. (1985, January 15–17). Bayesian netwcrks: A model cf self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
24. Deriving causal Bayesian networks from human reliability analysis data: A methodology and example model
25. Ghasemi, F., Sari, M.H.M., Yousefi, V., Falsafi, R., and Tamosaitiene, J. (2018). Project Portfolio Risk Identification and Analysis, Considering Project Risk Interactions and Using Bayesian Networks. Sustainability, 10.10.3390/su10051609 ↗
26. A hybrid BN-HFACS model for predicting safety performance in construction projects10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.025 ↗
27. Bayesian belief networks for predicting drinking water distribution system pipe breaks10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.024 ↗
28. A Bayesian Belief Network model of organizational factors for improving safe work behaviors in Thai construction industry10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.027 ↗
29. Heckerman, D. (2008). A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks. Innovations in Bayesian networks, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-85066-3_3 ↗
30. An efficient factorization for the noisy MAX
31. A causal calculus (I)10.1093/bjps/XI.44.305 ↗
32. Some Practical Issues in Constructing Belief Networks
33. Coding ATC incident data using HFACS: Inter-coder consensus10.1016/j.ssci.2011.05.007 ↗
34. Application of new human factors tool in an air traffic management organization10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.005 ↗
35. Significant human risk factors in aircraft maintenance technicians10.1016/j.ssci.2009.05.004 ↗
36. Pape, A.M., Wiegmann, D.A., and Shappell, S.A. (2001, January 5–8). Air traffic control (ATC) related accidents and incidents: A human factors analysis. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
37. SKYbrary: a single entry point to aviation safety knowledge
38. ICAO (1998). Human Factors Training Manual, International Civil Aviation Organization. [1st ed.].
39. Experts, Bayesian Belief Networks, rare events and aviation risk estimates10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.006 ↗
40. Wang, H., Rish, I., and Ma, S. (2002). Using Sensitivity Analysis for Selective Parameter Update in Bayesian Network Learning, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
41. Understanding human error in naval aviation mishaps10.1177/0018720818771904 ↗