Advanced

Predicting pilot error: Testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach

Stanton, Neville A.; Salmon, Paul; Harris, Don; Marshall, Andrew; Demagalski, Jason; Young, Mark S.; Waldmann, Thomas and Dekker, Sidney LU (2009) In Applied Ergonomics 40(3). p.464-471
Abstract
The Human Error Template (HET) is a recently developed methodology for predicting design-induced pilot error. This article describes a validation study undertaken to compare the performance of HET against three contemporary Human Error Identification (HEI) approaches when used to predict pilot errors for an approach and landing task and also to compare analyst error predictions to an approach to enhancing error prediction sensitivity: the multiple analysts and methods approach, whereby multiple analyst predictions using a range of HEI techniques are pooled. The findings indicate that, of the four methodologies used in isolation, analysts using the HET methodology offered the most accurate error predictions, and also that the multiple... (More)
The Human Error Template (HET) is a recently developed methodology for predicting design-induced pilot error. This article describes a validation study undertaken to compare the performance of HET against three contemporary Human Error Identification (HEI) approaches when used to predict pilot errors for an approach and landing task and also to compare analyst error predictions to an approach to enhancing error prediction sensitivity: the multiple analysts and methods approach, whereby multiple analyst predictions using a range of HEI techniques are pooled. The findings indicate that, of the four methodologies used in isolation, analysts using the HET methodology offered the most accurate error predictions, and also that the multiple analysts and methods approach was more successful overall in terms of error prediction sensitivity than the three other methods but not the HET approach. The results suggest that when predicting design-induced error, it is appropriate to use a toolkit of different HEI approaches and multiple analysts in order to heighten error prediction sensitivity. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
and validity, Reliability, Error prediction, Human error, Human Error Identification
in
Applied Ergonomics
volume
40
issue
3
pages
464 - 471
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000264453900020
  • scopus:60149109927
ISSN
1872-9126
DOI
10.1016/j.apergo.2008.10.005
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
66fdc1fa-3018-4ad6-ac83-bc983e521619 (old id 1401965)
date added to LUP
2009-06-03 14:38:47
date last changed
2017-11-12 03:35:16
@article{66fdc1fa-3018-4ad6-ac83-bc983e521619,
  abstract     = {The Human Error Template (HET) is a recently developed methodology for predicting design-induced pilot error. This article describes a validation study undertaken to compare the performance of HET against three contemporary Human Error Identification (HEI) approaches when used to predict pilot errors for an approach and landing task and also to compare analyst error predictions to an approach to enhancing error prediction sensitivity: the multiple analysts and methods approach, whereby multiple analyst predictions using a range of HEI techniques are pooled. The findings indicate that, of the four methodologies used in isolation, analysts using the HET methodology offered the most accurate error predictions, and also that the multiple analysts and methods approach was more successful overall in terms of error prediction sensitivity than the three other methods but not the HET approach. The results suggest that when predicting design-induced error, it is appropriate to use a toolkit of different HEI approaches and multiple analysts in order to heighten error prediction sensitivity. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  author       = {Stanton, Neville A. and Salmon, Paul and Harris, Don and Marshall, Andrew and Demagalski, Jason and Young, Mark S. and Waldmann, Thomas and Dekker, Sidney},
  issn         = {1872-9126},
  keyword      = {and validity,Reliability,Error prediction,Human error,Human Error Identification},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {464--471},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Applied Ergonomics},
  title        = {Predicting pilot error: Testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.10.005},
  volume       = {40},
  year         = {2009},
}