Human Factors in Flight

Hawkins, Frank H

doi:10.4324/9781351218580

Cited by 117 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A mismatch was found in the LeS interface between S8 and S12, which could be attributable to the trainees' insufficient understandings of procedural knowledge, in addition to their misinterpretation of confusing documents, maps, and charts (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993). Likewise, the LeH interfaces were significantly mismatched, possibly due to improperly designed equipment, inappropriate or missing operational materials, poorly located or coded instruments, and faulty control devices and warning systems (Cacciabue, 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…These interactions can positively or negatively influence performance and the development of behavioral norms. The LeL interface focuses heavily on these interpersonal relationships from the perspectives of leadership, cooperation, coordination, communication, teamwork, culture, personality, attitude, and social dynamics (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993;Johnston et al, 2001). Although the respondents were inexperienced, they nevertheless understood the importance of interactions between human operators and other individuals in the aviation system, as their exposure to errors or unstable conditions that could potentially lead to accidents or other incidents was statistically significantly low (Ex 28; M-value 1.95 and 29; M-value 2.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Edward maintained that the human factors theory is more problem-solving oriented than problem-theory oriented-that is, it focuses on practical rather than academicals approach; he further asserted that it is essential for human performance and its limitations to be understood in tandem in order to resolve discrepancies between humans and their surrounding environments (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993;Keightley, 2004). Hawkins later transformed Edwards' model into a building block structure, wherein crew and aircraft system components function as a foundation.…”

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The L variables pertain to human performance, capabilities, and limitations (ICAO, 1993). The LeS variables concern interactions between human operators and software, including (but not limited to) rules, procedures, and procedural information (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993;Wiener and Nagel, 1988). LeH variables involve human operators and machines (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993).…”

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LeS variables concern interactions between human operators and software, including (but not limited to) rules, procedures, and procedural information (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993;Wiener and Nagel, 1988). LeH variables involve human operators and machines (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993). LeE variables include interactions between human operators and internal/external environments as well as the adaption of a given environment to meet human requirements (Johnston et al, 2001;Wiener and Nagel, 1988).…”

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Safety perceptions of training pilots based on training institution and experience

Hong

Lee

Eun-Suk

et al. 2016

Journal of Air Transport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Shell Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Safety perceptions of training pilots based on training institution and experience

Hong

Lee

Eun-Suk

et al. 2016

Journal of Air Transport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Self‐Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW‐IT): Enhancing witness recall of workplace incidents

MacLean

Gabbert

Hope³

2019

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the often crucial role of witness evidence in Occupational Health and Safety investigation, statements should be obtained as soon as possible after an incident using best practice methods. The present research systematically tested the efficacy of a novel Self-Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW-IT); an adapted version of the Self-Administered Interview (SAI ©) designed to elicit comprehensive information from witnesses to industrial events. The present study also examined whether completing the SAW-IT mitigated the effect of schematic processing on witness recall. Results indicate that the SAW-IT elicited significantly more correct details, as well as more precise information than a traditional incident report form. Neither the traditional report from, nor the SAW-IT mitigated against biasing effects of contextual information about a worker's safety history, confirming that witnesses should be shielded from extraneous post-event information prior to reporting. Importantly, these results demonstrate that the SAW-IT can enhance the quality of witness reports.

show abstract

Situation awareness, human error, and organizational learning in sociotechnical systems

Marquardt

2019

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many organizations, the performance of individuals and teams is negatively affected by human error. Studies have shown that these errors can be reduced or even prevented by learning from them and by developing an understanding of error causation and its consequences. The ability to detect, understand, and anticipate errors refers to situation awareness (SA). Although SA is not limited to human error and it is more closely linked with decision making, it is a prerequisite for error reduction in complex sociotechnical work settings. The main objectives of this study were threefold: First, a model that can explain the interrelations between human error, SA, and organizational learning in sociotechnical systems was developed. Secondly, functional and dysfunctional factors that affect human error, SA, and organizational learning were identified. Thirdly, a research methodology was selected and adapted to empirically test the model in a real-world sociotechnical task environment. To do so, an SA performance test and a human error questionnaire were used to examine SA and respective learning modes of 108 assembly-line workers in the manufacturing industry. The final test results supported the central assumptions of the applied model. The article concludes by discussing applications in the field of sociotechnical systems analysis, team training, human performance programs, and high-reliability organizations.

show abstract

Human Factors in Flight

Cited by 117 publications

References 0 publications

Safety perceptions of training pilots based on training institution and experience

Safety perceptions of training pilots based on training institution and experience

The Self‐Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW‐IT): Enhancing witness recall of workplace incidents

Situation awareness, human error, and organizational learning in sociotechnical systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About