Quantitative indicators of air traffic controllers’ attitude to the danger of errors

Abstract

The negative and persistent impact of the human factor on the statistics of aviation accidents and serious incidents makes proactive studies of the attitude of “front line” aviation operators (air traffic controllers, flight crewmembers) to dangerous actions or professional conditions as a key component of the current paradigm of ICAO safety concept. This “attitude” is determined through the indicators of the influence of the human factor on decision-making, which also include the systems of preferences of air traffic controllers on the indicators and characteristics of professional activity, illustrating both the individual perception of potential risks and dangers, and the peculiarities of generalized group thinking that have developed in a particular society. Preference systems are an ordered (ranked) series of n = 21 errors: from the most dangerous to the least dangerous and characterize only the danger preference of one error over another. The degree of this preference is determined only by the difference in the ranks of the errors and does not answer the question of how much time one error is more dangerous in relation to another. The differential method for identifying the comparative danger of errors, as well as the multistep technology for identifying and filtering out marginal opinions were applied. From the initial sample of m = 37 professional air traffic controllers, two subgroups mB=20 and mG=7 people were identified with statisti-cally significant at a high level of significance within the group consistency of opinions a = 1%. Nonpara-metric optimization of the corresponding group preference systems resulted in Kemeny’s medians, in which the related (middle) ranks were missing. Based on these medians, weighted coefficients of error hazards were determined by the mathematical prioritization method. It is substantiated that with the ac-cepted accuracy of calculations, the results obtained at the second iteration of this method are more ac-ceptable. The values of the error hazard coefficients, together with their ranks established in the preference systems, allow a more complete quantitative and qualitative analysis of the attitude of both individual air traffic controllers and their professional groups to hazardous actions or conditions.