Human Factors
Human Factors In Aviation
To me, a working definition of Human Factors in Aviation is defined as; "A person/persons that is either knowledgeable or not with a task. That takes an unnecessary risk in a situation that results in an incident or accident which could have been mitigated had they done a proper risk assessment." This falls in line with many aspects of Aviation and all the people that are involved. Chapter two of the PHAK (2016) talks about how up to 70% of the accidents/incidents are human factors, and it is not only air operation but also maintenance and air traffic management. Everyone from the people working at the check-in counter weighing bags, the ground crew maintaining and fueling the aircraft, and the pilot and crew ensuring they are fit for flight, has a part in safe air travel. Most of the time, we hear the term "pilot error" and think, "oh, the pilot is solely the one to blame," but when looking broader, you find that it is more related to human factors related. The pilot's final decision probably had other factors that led to that decision. (PHAK, 2016) The IACO Circular 240-AN/144 (1993) gives a pretty good list of about six pages for a Human Factors Checklist in appendix 1. It covers a lot of different aspects of human factors and gives them a grade scale of 0-3. These are what they look like, 0 = Not contributory 1 = Possibly contributory 2 = Probably contributory 3 = Evidence of hazard. These grades could be used to prevent an incident/accident or as a post-incident/accident to determine what human factors played in the situation.
Hazardous attitudes in maintenance are a common occurrence and why we have redundant measures to check work performed on aircraft. These attitudes, if not checked, cause bad situations for everyone involved with aviation. I have seen aircraft dropped on the nose because a safety pin wasn't installed during a pre-launch maintenance action. The investigation of this led to technicians rushing to get the job done and were being impulsive. I have had pilots literally telling me I am wrong because they have been flying an aircraft for ten years, and they have never seen a specific system do something even though I have technical data to support me. I couldn't convince them otherwise, and this showed me their anti-authority. Lastly, I have seen parts ripped out of an aircraft because a maintainer was not following technical orders. (See Picture Below) Most of the time, it is a macho man's world out on the flight line, with everyone always trying to prove themselves right.
This is where the picture below comes into action. I was deployed, and I had a guy with me that was very forceful and always wanted to prove himself. This is fine with me. I can handle this type of attitude, but one day I was busy working on something else, and my second person had to handle the removal of a valve. I asked him if he had questions because I wanted to set him up for success. He brushed me off and declined any input from me, and headed off. This was a clear sign of a macho attitude. So, the headstrong guy jumps right in, trying to show everyone that he knows what he is doing and can be depended on. He ditches the one thing that is drilled into our brains as maintainers. Never do anything without Technical Orders!
As the guy gets ahead of himself, he grabs the wrench and starts turning the B-nut, and ends up twisting the line. He showed his impulsivity at that moment to prove himself. If he had used the proper tools, it would not have happened. After he twisted that line, he went onto the other line in the picture and twisted that one. The job ultimately ended when he went to take out the fittings from the valve and ripped the mounting hardware straight out the bulkhead. When I got over there, I started asking questions about what had happened. The guy responded, "I have done it before, and nothing like this happened, so I figured it would be fine to do it like this." Clearly, he thought he was invulnerable and because this guy had gotten away with it once before he could do it again. That was certainly not the case. In the end, he caused three other maintenance sections work and an aircraft unworthy of flight while deployed. This was a big deal, and he got in some trouble for not thinking and using proper tools. This incident has human factors written all over it.
Comments
Post a Comment