Human Error Management Paper

Human Error Management Paper

Instructions/Descriptions

Human Error Management Paper

[Order Now]

Human, Error, Management, Paper

Commercial aviation has evolved in terms of training to include crew resource management (CRM) – a shift from cockpit training. As such, CRM can be evaluated and validated, its limitations, such as inefficient cross-cultural outlook, are highlighted.

An inclusive framework that focuses on human error management to enhance its acceptance in the commercial aviation sector is analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the concept. Under the error management concept, behavioral strategies to counter, tap and mitigate the ramifications of the error are presented.

The development in CRM has evolved since the introduction of appropriate training programs to include the assessment of CRM skills, and especially in multi-crew cockpits. Various regulators around the world, to include the European and the Americans, have introduced the requirements for training, as well as assessing crew’s non-technical skills. Therefore, there is evidence of a wide-scale practice available in the design, as well as the implementation of CRM and other related programs.

Introduction

At the beginning of the second half the 20th century, especially the 1960s to 1980s, the commercial aviation industry witnessed an unprecedented spike in human-error related aviation accidents, such as the Tenerife collision that killed up to five hundred people (Weick, 1990). As a result, industry players decided to implement several measures geared towards promoting team working among flight-crew (Bennet, 2015).

Hence, crew resource management (CRM) concept came into light, intending to enhance pilots’, as well as the cabin attendant’s human factor skills. According to Salas et al. (2001), a CRM’s overarching framework includes but not limited to training aircrews to enable them to use available resources, such as equipment and information, by coordinating activities as a team.

In the modern civil aviation industry, CRM forms the backbone of the industry player’s safety management system (SMS). Also, Salas et al. (2001) posit that using CRM to train aircrew will enhance performance to include positive participant feedback, application of acquired knowledge through simulation.

However, the concerted efforts to strengthen crew human-factor skills, the issue of human error in commercial aviation persists, which according to Harris (2014), “Human error is now the principal threat to flight safety: it is estimated that up to 75 per cent of all aircraft accidents … have a major human factors component.” (P.90)

Error Management Using CRM

CRM uses the principle that is ubiquitous in human error, which inevitable as well as a valued data source. If the error is not avoided, CRM is a three-defense line seen as countermeasures sets of failure. Avoidance of mistakes is the first natural solution. Secondly, emerging errors are caught before committing. Lastly, mitigation of occurring errors but aren’t captured, for instance, ‘Troika’ is an error management tool.

CRM similar sets countermeasures relate to an individual situation; hence, detection is the variation period. For instance, an experienced ‘controlled flight into terrain’ (CFIT), technically developed flight since an error keyed in FMC. The best approach procedures are carefully briefed and possible occurrence of pitfalls, together with FMC verification and communication that might avoid the failure.

Ensuring that entries match during monitoring and before the execution of the measure will ensure that erroneous entries are trapped. Finally, as the last option, inquiry of the action needs to yield appropriate mitigation outcome for incorrect input before CFIT.

To be recognized as a proper error management model, airline companies need to address issues related to their level of understanding about the potential errors and consequently adopt an objective approach towards rectifying it. Also, organization, apart from error normalization, needs to initiate measures that identify the source, as well as the nature of the error in their routine operations (Kanki, 2019).

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Safety Action Programs of 1997 aims at promoting transparency in the reporting of incidents in an organization, as well as initiating measures that address issues on time. Also, the FAA encourages a confidential reporting system that enables pilots to report errors and safety concerns in a proactive manner. Data produced by the system in place allows an organization to initiates steps that mitigate and prevent recurrence of the number of incidents pilots report.

Literature Review

The CRM concept is designed to equip pilots with the necessary skills need to assemble and direct flight-related resource, such as the software and hardware components of an aircraft, to ensure safety during the flight. CRM applies different physiological theories that include work-group formation theory (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) and the theory of mindfulness (Langer, 1989).

The concept of CRM enhances team working, observational, as well as coordination skills. Also, it promotes creativity and innovation among flight crew, as well as generating synergy and promoting constructive criticism (Gordon et al. 2013; Wiener et al. 1993; MacLeod 2005.

According to Hernandez and Ferguson, (2011), formal training in CRM is attributed to the federal advisory directive of 1989 that encouraged, both the civilian, as well as military aviation to adopt the concept. With its origin from the management development models, the CRM is a multiday training course that provides hands-on training in decision-making, conflict resolution, interpersonal communication, and stress management areas.

Belief in the effectiveness of CRM training, as a way of promoting flight safety operations, is well known. However, there is limited empirical evidence about the efficiency of CRM programs.

The critical question may raise issues of if CRM training may accomplish its objectives of enhancing safety, as well as the efficiency of flight. The convenient criterion for validating the approach can be the number of accidents in every million flights.

However, according to Helmreich et al. (1996), the strategy may not be appropriate or conclusive because of the significantly low number of accidents and the variations in the CRM parameters will make the concept seem inefficient on the long term. Therefore, because there no single and reliable criterion, air accidents investigators have adopted a representative criterion to deduce the conclusion regarding the efficiency of the model indirectly.

Reports of air incidents, which may not directly lead to an accident, is a probable element of criterion measure. But because reporting an incident is entirely voluntary, then it is nearly impossible to infer the rate of accident occurrence – a necessity for validation. There are two known and reliable criteria: the flight deck behavior and attitudes towards the concept. For a start, complete mission simulation marks the beginning of the program.

One weakness with this phase is that crews may not show optimal crew coordination during easement, and especially in a potentially hazardous situation. Still, it is not sufficient to compromise the efficiency of the program. Also, it is argued that the most reliable data can be obtained when crews are audited in a moderately safe condition (Salas et al., 2006). However, Nullmeyer and Spiker (2003) counter the argument by suggesting that data from such assessments usually do not reflect the effectiveness of such training to yield the desired behavior changes.

Such finding runs counter with the evolution of the program by the participant. According to Salas et al. (2006), crews who conclude the evaluation point out that the training is both essential and useful. Also, attitudes are a significant indicator of the impact the practice has because it indicates the cognitive elements of the concept contained in training. Even though opinions may not correctly note the effectiveness of the training, it is, however, a truism that participants who show some level of rejection towards the concept are more likely to adhere to the training precepts.

Thus, according to Salas et al. 2006; Helmreich et al. (1996) attitudes have been measured to have a bearing on CRM, and were identified as playing a pivotal role in air incents, as well as accidents. Also, Helrnreich et al. (1996) argue that data from multiple airlines indicate that flight deck attitudes have a positive influence on the cockpit management.

Methodology

The methodology is informed by two conventional research traditions: content analysis and ethnography.

Ethnography

According to Sparkes (2009), ethnography produces a more vivid account of complicated social issues. Ethnographers collect data from a social environment without the need to orchestrate an ideal situation, such as experiments, and with minimal disturbances from the researcher. According to Garcia and Gluesing (2013), the ethnographic study provides a unique understanding of the analysis and comprehension of the situation.

Also, the approach enables the researcher to put oneself into the situation of the participant – a reflective process in itself. Also according to Burns (2000), ethnography requires an input of the ability to interpret the situation, “Fieldwork [involves] qualitative analysis — necessarily interpretation — [to produce] an understanding of the observed patterns of behavior engaged in by those being studied “(P. 395).

Therefore, understanding the research environment facilitates empathetic understanding, as well as interpretation. Also, an ethnographer needs to show a wide array of skills to include text transcription, diary-keeping, field mapping, and establishing a connection with the informants. Hence, ethnography is the best method for this study when researching the utilization and teaching of CRM.

Content Analysis

According to Beck, Campbell and Shrives, (2010), content analysis is useful for finding out the meaning of a narrative. Also, Maxfield and Babbie (2001) argue that “Content analysis involves the systematic study of messages” (P. 329). Essentially, content analysis contains a check-list where the counting of images, ideas, scenes or phrases appear.

Furthermore, Braun and Clarke (2006) add that, “content analysis supports the identification of meaning within the data set” (P. 82). Therefore, observers can be read and revised to identify the most persistent themes. By subjecting observer’s notes to content analysis, the researcher can produce more comprehensive analysis, thus facilitating teamwork, which may, in turn, facilitate CRM’s social interaction.

Results

The specific study outline over the past ten weeks, United Kingdom, registered carrier of the lower cost that flew each route, representatives did not claim anything. However, CRM studies of paucity Vivo and industry context tries to increase the relevance and regular pieces of training of CRM. It is measured that findings and information are of great importance.

The characterization of the practice of communities is through repertoire sharing,” joint enterprise,” and mutual engagement. The practice of the community involves individuals sharing something familiar to them and study the best way to do it as well as communicate frequently.

A lot of methods of communities sustain commercial aviation differ in duration, structure and size. The largest and different international flight community, i.e., the macro practice of community, comprising of air service providers employed either indirectly or indirectly.

Through politics, the development of CRM was established, particularly concerning disaster response such as ‘Tenerife.’ the maintenance CRM of through first actions and rhetoric and dispatchers, crew, tutors, controller’s holders of budget, and regulators among others are absorbed into aviating praxis. According to the researchers, know-how, through reflection and resource management, crew auctioning, aviating praxis rooted crew.

However, it is not correctly always stepped, understanding of team and the CRM principles accepted like curiosity, transparency, inclusivity, respect, and compassion for proficiency despite the origin point. Inappropriately, the observance of the third party lacked when engineers, dispatchers, and fillers disrupting the deck of the aviation flow of the job at crucial periods for instance, briefing before taking off on PF or during programming of FMC. CRM practice such as ordinary glue, other pilots hadn’t sailed together for a specified period.

CRM is preassembly rational to play a part in maintaining and developing the connection. CRM is ‘normative’ meaning that social interaction teamwork promotion in lingua franca. Through teamwork promotion, social interaction is facilitated by CRM.

Conclusion

First, CRM lasts long on moderate strain conditions. An open question will remain a research advantage, whether it remains durable in harsh conditions. The convicting knowledge living in an individual association of stratum bits of expertise developed by the practice community group need to be excavated by individuals answerable to advanced philosophical of team asset the board, and by those liable for checking the CRM preparing an educational plan. The mining of workers’ understandings is active learning hypothesis.

Thirdly, CRM shapes and encourages social relations through communication. CRM is standardizing: it makes the most widely used language of social collaboration and advances social intercourse. In this manner, it bolsters group development — an essential minute in the life of a rostered team. Fourthly, thoughtlessness concerning crewmembers undermines CRM. There was causing delay and inconvenience to crew and passengers.

Lastly, the interference of the deck of aircraft schedules and by outsiders (e.g., Dispatchers) represented a risk to flight-security. Bringing issues to light of multiple calling of CRM preparation might assist in settling the query of task process interference. Concerning factors of people of nonattendance preparing intended for dispatchers practiced issues rotate about society’s conflict and reduced interchanges abilities. Typically, it is revealed by reduced associations, among the dispatchers and the pilots affecting the productivity, certain occurrences wellbeing.

Reference

Beck, A. C., Campbell, D., & Shrives, P. J. (2010). Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 207-222.

Bennett, S.A. (2015). Aviation Safety and Security: The Importance of Teamwork, Leadership, Creative Thinking and Active Learning. Faringdon, England: Libri Publishing Ltd.

Braun, V.; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.

Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garcia, D., & Gluesing, J. C. (2013). Qualitative research methods in international organizational change research. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Harris, D. (2014). Improving aircraft safety. The Psychologist, 27(2): 90-94

Helmreich, R.L.; Merritt, A.C.; Sherman, P.J. 1(996). Human Factors and National Culture. ICAO Journal, 51(8): 14-16.

Hernandez, E. C., & Ferguson, J. M. (2011). The Brady bunch: an examination of disclosure obligations in the civilian federal and military justice systems. AFL Rev., 67, 187.

Kanki, B. G. (2019). Communication and crew resource management. In Crew resource management (pp. 103-137). Academic Press.

Langer, E.J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Maxfield, M.G.; Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Third Edition. Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Nullmeyer, R. T., & Spiker, V. A. (2003). The importance of crew resource management behaviors in mission performance: Implications for training evaluation. Military Psychology, 15(1), 77-96.

Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392-412.

Salas, E.; Burke, C.S.; Bowers, C.A.; Wilson, K.A. (2001). Team Training in the Skies: Does Crew Resource Management (CRM) Training Work? Human Factors, 43: 641-674

Sparkes, A. C. (2009). Ethnography and the senses: Challenges and possibilities. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1(1), 21-35.

Tuckman, B.W.; Jensen, M.C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2: 419-42

Weick, K.E. (1990). The Vulnerable System: An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3): 571-593.

Professional Plagiarism Free Paper in APA/MLA/Harvard/Turabian Format, Instant Delivery, High Quality Submissions, 100% Unique, Turnitin Report Attached

Human Error Management Paper

Human Error Management Paper

Human Error Management Paper

Place the Order Here: https://standardwriter.com/orders/ordernow / https://standardwriter.com/

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!