The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

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

human error, human error identification, error prediction, reliability and validity
0003-6870
464-471
Stanton, Neville A
351a44ab-09a0-422a-a738-01df1fe0fadd
Salmon, Paul
5398e747-09a5-47c2-9982-2906880c64c6
Harris, Don
4840ad19-c4c3-4e06-9846-589b330a3668
Marshall, Andrew
86b0a2fe-925e-47d4-99d3-5f23163bcb1e
Demagalski, Jason
0d0f4b9f-5af8-479d-90e1-ecc8039f5a7f
Young, Mark S
3f79589e-2000-4cb0-832a-6eba54f50130
Waldmann, Thomas
08f3271e-978d-4c76-8155-70565faf3789
Dekker, Sidney
de2e111d-ef1b-4c88-9d5f-884b88b98c32
Stanton, Neville A
351a44ab-09a0-422a-a738-01df1fe0fadd
Salmon, Paul
5398e747-09a5-47c2-9982-2906880c64c6
Harris, Don
4840ad19-c4c3-4e06-9846-589b330a3668
Marshall, Andrew
86b0a2fe-925e-47d4-99d3-5f23163bcb1e
Demagalski, Jason
0d0f4b9f-5af8-479d-90e1-ecc8039f5a7f
Young, Mark S
3f79589e-2000-4cb0-832a-6eba54f50130
Waldmann, Thomas
08f3271e-978d-4c76-8155-70565faf3789
Dekker, Sidney
de2e111d-ef1b-4c88-9d5f-884b88b98c32

Stanton, Neville A, Salmon, Paul, Harris, Don, Marshall, Andrew, Demagalski, Jason, Young, Mark S, Waldmann, Thomas and Dekker, Sidney (2009) Predicting pilot error: testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Applied Ergonomics, 40 (3), 464-471. (doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.10.005).

Record type: Article

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.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 10 October 2008
e-pub ahead of print date: 28 November 2008
Published date: May 2009
Keywords: human error, human error identification, error prediction, reliability and validity

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 76207
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/76207
ISSN: 0003-6870
PURE UUID: e3e7fb7a-f80e-4702-8ff1-c8723b598e47
ORCID for Neville A Stanton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-3279
ORCID for Mark S Young: ORCID iD orcid.org/0009-0001-2594-453X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Mar 2010
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 03:27

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Paul Salmon
Author: Don Harris
Author: Andrew Marshall
Author: Jason Demagalski
Author: Mark S Young ORCID iD
Author: Thomas Waldmann
Author: Sidney Dekker

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×